dredwerker

Come on that £800

I just put a £10 on 0.5% up just in case they realise they need to sharply correct. Would get me £800 - likelihood is low - they will prob drop it now I have never really bet on anything much apart from the dogs - I am quite excited. I put a fiver on England beating Spain while I was at it

They might well be but I am sure I saw some good sold prices on a thread a while ago not just guide prices. There is a trend analysis feature on the site as well. I was watching some of them live but it was a boring bit where they were selling freeholds etc..

Lot 41 just sold for £495k with a guid of £320k plus oh no that'll be the peak madness

Any bargains in anyone's areas? There is only one in Sussex I shall check it out.. http://www.barnardmarcusauctions.co.uk/ Go to current auction

The other side of the coin is we are about to have a 'dead cat bounce' - 'kondratieff cycle' 'third bump' or whatever it was. You buy one give it a go it appreciates you cash out lively if you dont you go bankrupt and try something else in 2009 and I am a bear.

Warning on affordable rural homes The organisations say people are being priced out of the countryside Future generations will not be able to afford to buy homes in the countryside unless the government takes action, two organisations have warned. The National Housing Federation and the Campaign to Protect Rural England are calling on the government to tackle the shortage of affordable rural houses. They want to see a timetable for implementing last year's Affordable Rural Housing Commission report. This called for measures such as limiting the right to buy rural homes. Published in June last year, the independent Affordable Rural Housing Commission (ARHC) report also called for previously developed public land to be made available for affordable housing, and for a reduction in the number of empty homes. 'Urgent action needed' The National Housing Federation and the Campaign to Protect Rural England are putting forward their concerns at a rural housing conference on Wednesday in Rugby, Warwickshire. "Eight months have passed since the ARHC gave us a blueprint for addressing the rural housing crisis," sad David Orr, the National Housing Federation's executive. "What change have we seen since then? Precious little. "The government can't afford to drag its heels while so many people in our rural communities are denied access to an affordable home. Urgent action is needed." A spokesman for the Department of Communities and Local Government said it was already implementing one of the most important recommendations of the ARHC report - changing planning guidance to support more affordable homes being built in rural areas. "We agreed with the ARHC that we need more affordable homes in rural areas to help families stay in the countryside," he said. Feck the countryfolk come to Brighton(or any other city) - the cityfolk are already subsidising the feckers. Somehow its worse for countryfolk - people with squints and hunchbacks /rant

That is very funny in a sort of Sam Tyler kind of way Although I am sure if enough people do it has to work - otherwise why advertise if they dont care if they have any customers.

I supposed I should of upped my figure a little bit. We pay £875 for our 3 bed house but I know another couple who want to pay around £750ish I think this £350-£375 each is a comfortable figure for people. Even when they earn £50k between them. A 2 bed flat near hove lawns was about £775 per month 6 months ago - in a block. There is a lot of competition for this sort of property. You really start to get so much more for every £100 you spend. Its definitely interesting about the £1200 per month thing - that doesnt take into account people who pay £100-200(subsidising the tenant) in hope of capital appreciation. Someone actually said that is normal to me the other day at which point I laughed. Good post BTW

LMAO

You might be right about the top end of the market. The average earnings are p*ss poor in East Sussex. I am not so sure about the ones within mere mortals ranges. £600-700 People have to live somewhere. I just moved away from Hangleton(North Hove) a bit to Southwick and things are moving / not a lot of supply(rental). Then again the prices that place go up for sale £195,950 for a two bed flat in Hangleton Hangleton Way The one below was £35k 7 years ago and no-one would buy it. The other one I was banging on about being absurd in Hangleton Lane 3 bed house. Lovely if it was £160k @ 4.5% but £415k Feck off Hangleton Lane Its been on the market for a while now maybe november I cant quite remember and is losing £1k in interest every month which is different to going up £1k a month

A year away - it will have all crashed by q1 2007

Even if I bought I cant imagine having any money left to rip down walls and get smeg stuff in the kitchen Have I landed from a different planet?

True True That is a bit of bear own goal isnt it

My apologies- I thought it read in quite a balanced manor. It also read as now - with talk of interest rates etc.. Sorry

A houseprice crash on a Landlord's site - Quite balanced IMHO Landlord Trader Will Foot Thu 23 Sep 2004 11:47 123 posts (amazingly imo) IMF (International Monetary Fund) warned today of future UK house price crash if interest rates are to rise. Firstly, is this really their concern? Also does this not put increased pressure on Brown / King to keep rates down? Julian Schiller Thu 7 Oct 2004 07:49 149 posts Personally I think flat til the end of year for sure ..... Thomas Baker Wed 13 Oct 2004 22:04 13 posts I live in London and believe prices have already fallen over the summer (as much as 10% in some areas). But I don't think property will fall in nominal terms much over medium. With increased inflationary pressure now that oil has hit $53 a barrel, prices will surely fall in real terms. In any event, it will be interesting to see what happens. Ia m already looking to buy in a few select areas in London. Francesco Sedia Wed 13 Oct 2004 22:33 69 posts Prices in London have already taken a slight knock. But doesn't look like a crash is on its way. FS Jo Bishop Sat 6 Nov 2004 22:11 18 posts I agree that prices have softened 5-10% but thats almost healthy isnt it. Well has helped yields appear more attractive if you are buying. If you believe that interest rates have levelled out and perhaps might fall, I don't think that there is any chance of the market slipping any further. Jo Will Foot Mon 8 Nov 2004 23:28 123 posts The trouble is it's all so localised. I think whatever the market you have to be on your guard and do your research above all. Less than a month ago the Blairs splashed out over £4m for their future London pad. If they had felt the economy would drag prices down considerably I can't believe they would have put quite so much of their personal wealth on the line. What drags down prices most I think is forced sales, and this is most prominent when interest rates take off and cashflow dries up, rather than profit takers selling while they still can (as I see now). While interest rates plateaux, I can't see much of a dip beyond a correction for the speculative money leaving the market. Phil Dawes Wed 10 Nov 2004 23:33 71 posts I think your point about the blairs is a special case. There's so much constant money in London that the really expensive places don 't dive like the "investment" 2-bed flats. Also, agree forced sales bring down prices fastest, but interest rates may be some way off. However, the forcing might not only come from inability to pay mortgage - there's so much personal debt hanging round that isn't sustainable people might be STRing just to cash out. Regards Phil joanne shillingworth Fri 12 Nov 2004 09:05 17 posts i been looking at properties in nottingham. prices seem to have dropped 5-10% but a lot of this seems to be down to the fact that those that had completely unrealistic expectations have become a little more sensible. im pleased for myself and for the market. i think this needed to happen. the real dip in prices seems to be with the new builds and off-plan. i nearly bought some of these a few months back. talk about oversupply in some areas. there are going to be some very unhappy people over the next 12 months who bought in this market. jo Thomas Baker Fri 12 Nov 2004 23:34 13 posts Despite my post from 3-4 wks ago, I think the London market has started to pick up once more. Not like before but the traditional buyers are definately back in the market. This market really is difficult to call. Terry Flynn Sun 14 Nov 2004 21:11 18 posts It is a coming......not sure when but mst happen Phil Dawes Sun 21 Nov 2004 13:12 71 posts Thomas, I have started to think that things might not be as bad as I suspected. Indicators are changing all the time at the moment so I am not sure what to think. January and February will be important months as typically the market is strong then. This is the critical time. Phil Owen Anglim Mon 22 Nov 2004 00:13 34 posts This subject is getting old. Phil's comments summed up my feelings and that is no-one really knows so lets not dwell on it and get working. Owen Martin Fisher Mon 22 Nov 2004 23:27 27 posts Owen, It might be old but long may it continue. Forums are for debates and all markets need buyers and sellers. Julian Schiller Tue 23 Nov 2004 08:38 149 posts After my post of 7th October. My thoughts are: 1. Market has stabilised - largely due to interest rate hiking but not beyond the somewhat critical level of 4.75% 2. Market has softened 5% in the South but seems to have held up strong in the North. Julian Francesco Sedia Tue 23 Nov 2004 22:52 69 posts London still down but signs of a slight pick-up in activity. Interesting times ahead. Yields moving higher so not bad for investors. FS Julian Schiller Wed 1 Dec 2004 23:09 149 posts FS, I have also noticed signs of a pick-up in London. I think that the market will see a small uplift in January. November / December are traditionally quiet months with limited activity in any case. Julian joanne shillingworth Thu 2 Dec 2004 15:59 17 posts Goldman Sachs thinks prices will dip between 10 and 15% over the next 18 months, while Barclays think there will be a 20% sink next 3 years. This includes a 8% drop in 2005 alone! Hold on tight everyone. John Grigg Fri 3 Dec 2004 14:18 196 posts halifax reckon on a 2% drop in 2005, then a steady rise again. in my opinion you can't make generalisations on UK property prices. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4064613.stm Gavin Walsh Fri 3 Dec 2004 19:37 11 posts I have also noticed signs of a pick-up in London. I think that the market will see a small uplift in January. November / December are traditionally quiet months with limited activity in any case.unquote A house over the road from us has been sold subject to contract in 5 days. Needed some work to bring into the 21st century but less than 10 grand with a full set of windows. November and December may be slow but it depends what you are selling. Worst thing is the poor seller is going to be into over 2 grand in fees to the estate agent. They only did 4 viewings and 2 of those were me. Gavin John Grigg Tue 7 Dec 2004 16:43 196 posts I read in the news today that the BBC are to lay off 3000 staff. Someone in the Evening Standard reckons this will have an impact on the housing market in West London? I'd be surprised if that few could make a difference - how many of them can be owner-occupiers and live close to work?? John John Grigg Tue 7 Dec 2004 16:48 196 posts Actually they are laying off staff at CSFB as well! I'm not exactly a bear or a bull, but I am not sensing any great shift in sentiment among business or consumers - is this just a red herring do you guys think? John Julian Schiller Wed 8 Dec 2004 21:26 149 posts Gavin, £2k in London is not bad. 2.5% is what agents charge in my area of central london. They make a tidy profit. Julian Francesco Sedia Sun 12 Dec 2004 12:03 69 posts I just sold a flat in London for £558 with an agent charging me 2.25% + VAT. That worked out at nearly £15k. I was not too happy but then again it is the going rate. FS John Grigg Sun 12 Dec 2004 12:11 196 posts Then you've got the stamp duty of course Francesco. I heard a rumour that this was going to be increased (the boundaries). Or was that the Tories manifesto? Anyway, why do you guys think estate agents are paid a proportion of the house's value? Surely it's similar time and effort involved? Some of my sales happen quickly, some longer, but I wouldn't say the more expensive ones are harder to shift. John mark chester Tue 14 Dec 2004 10:35 45 posts An agent does at least actively market your property (unless they want a big fat brown envelope from a developer friend..), printing costs, viewing time, all adds up I guess. I still consider that they are NOT worth the cost, however. The stereotypical agent dousing himself with half a bottle of cologne couldn't have been any nearer the mark last week. I was almost knocked off my feet by this one whipper-snapper, my eyes were practically burning in their sockets! Terry Flynn Tue 14 Dec 2004 14:57 18 posts Along with Landlord Trader, there are other online estate agents that you can use. All keep the costs down. Graeme Todman Tue 14 Dec 2004 19:33 11 posts I reckon we could do a better job than all the overpaid so called analysts, in my opinion the whole market is governed by interest rates which determines monthly affordability. As landlords there are two simple rules, 1. buy in a recession. 2. Sell during a boom. Period. Please please give us a recession !! Julian Schiller Wed 22 Dec 2004 23:55 149 posts Too true Graeme. Too tru

As long as they fecking pay for it - Like tenants do and they get the benefit. My g/f (from OZ) was shocked that the tenants over here pay for the credit checks for landlords.

Before I post there is another link on this blog http://sbbeachbubble.blogspot.com/2007/01/...at-risk-of.html which was What a great URL I am not sure I can bear it. I'll get my coat. Anyway : The quarterly numbers for mortgage default notices are out in this January 24 report by David Streitfeld. We'll compare this report to the October report and see what the numbers are and what people are saying. For Q4 2006, the number of mortgage default notices issued to Californians was the highest since 1998, rising to 37,273. (The accompanying graph in the story says "Southern California", but I think the number applies to the entire state.) That is up 145% from Q4 2005. The number of foreclosures was 6,078 for Q4 2006, up from 874 in Q4 2005. That's an increase of 595%, nearly 7X. Yet, the attitude of mortgage lenders and analysts the article surveys is "So far, this isn't alarming", "I don't really see any stress out there. Most people... are figuring out ways to get those mortgages current by any means possible so they're not kicked out on the street." I don't think they get it. I guess they just don't want to yell "Fire!" in the crowded theatre yet. While I would agree that the pure raw numbers by themselves may not necessarily be indicative of anything, the rate at which they have been changing has definitely been making me take notice! Unfortunately, this article comes up short. It does not break down the default rates by county, as was done for last quarter. If the L.A. Times subsequently publishes this breakdown, I will blog it. The article brims with all kinds of rationalizations for the numbers though. At least for this quarter they now admit that the option of escaping foreclosure by selling into a booming market "isn't available to recent buyers or those who have visited the pig (piggy bank) once too often." Also, the economy was very bad here in California for a period of time during the 90's. And yet my interpretation of all this is, isn't it amazing how rapidly these numbers are worsening while the economy is still holding up!?!?! It's hard to believe that in the mid-1990's, the quarterly defaults routinely exceeded 50,000 and foreclosures topped 15,000. I think we're easily going to blast through those levels and very soon. But the article makes a good point here. Again, the raw numbers are not indicative of anything unless you have something to compare them against. We have a substantially higher supply of housing stock and more homeowners. If we compared the number of homeowners getting default notices compared to the total number of homeowners in the state we'd have a somewhat better idea of how much trouble we are in at this stage. Nevertheless, I find the rates of change alarming, and I am amazed by the seemingly blase attitude toward these changes. Don't believe for a minute that the mortgage lender fairy is bailing out everybody in trouble. The article talks about a man who was faced with a 50-50 chance of dying on the operating table because of his heart problems. So he refinanced the house to make sure his wife had a cash cushion, failing to read the part about how the payments would skyrocket. And there was another problem. He lived. The equity went toward paying his medical expenses and bills. And then his property value started droppping. As he puts it, "If I hadn't survived, everything would have been fine." The mortgage broker trying to help this man out of his mess admits, "People are living on the edge, and they can't help it with the price of houses. They have good jobs but they bought over their heads, into the American dream." The Center for Responsible Lending notes that those who bought most recently are most at risk with their subprime loans. The center estimates that 25% of the subprime loans made in Merced will result in foreclosure. Vallejo, Bakersfield, Fresno and Stockton are also high risk, along with several other unnamed California cities. The Center estimates a loan failure rate of 21.4% for 2006 subprime loans in the state, with Nevada and Washington D.C., expected to have worse rates. They will probably get the trend right in their forecast - let's see how the actual numbers fare later. But back to the blase attitudes of the experts. The jump in foreclosures "won't crash the housing market. As long as no life event comes along that pushes them over the edge, they'll probably be OK. With 85% of Americans dying either of cancer or cardio-vascular diseases thanks to their under-exercised junk food fast food lifestyles, I'm not particularly optimistic that the bulk of leveraged homeowners in poor health will escape such financial catastrophes. posted by bearmaster at 6:38 AM 2 Comments: wannabuy said... It's hard to believe that in the mid-1990's, the quarterly defaults routinely exceeded 50,000 and foreclosures topped 15,000. I think we're easily going to blast through those levels and very soon. First, nice find Bearmaster. 2nd: Oh, we're going to blow through those foreclosures. There was some discussion today in Ben's "bitsbucket" about moving out of state. Put my name in that hat. I haven't commited, but I've gone from disliking being transfered to having hope for that scenario. Boston was like this (discussion on relocating) six months ago and then their RE started tanking. We'll see. I admit I'll flip flow 20 times on this! But I was shocked that where the latest rumor puts us has: $3,000 less income/year (52k vs $55k for LA) Median home price ~$102k (IIRC, its close to that) Better education (incredibly high density of engineers, as the south bay used to be...No one invests in their child's education like engineers.) Weather? Ok, worse(humidity), but when you can afford $12k/year more for vacations... you can escape. Got popcorn? 12:51 PM bearmaster said... For anybody that hasn't read it, I still strongly recommend reading Schizomania, because I think it has done a great job in modeling our historical migration patterns in this country, and it's looking pretty good in its forecasts for where we are headed (and, except for a patch of land near Owens Valley, California just ain't it.) You can find my review here. My engineering coworker who is moving his family (2 tiny kids) out of Los Angeles up to Oregon is leaving this weekend. He rented a 3 bedroom home up in Portland for $1400 a month. He'd easily be paying double that here. The economics are driving people away, plain and simple. And have you caught Steve Lopez's columns at the L.A. Times? People are fed up with the gridlock too. I'm really starting to think the only real fix for that is a reduction in the number of people - and that means moving out of state. 1:13 PM

Is that UK PLC about to become MSC Napoli or whatever it was called? Maybe we can get a few cheap houses?

I was thinking about this earlier. Surely every property is owned by someone(apart from the odd squat that is contested) - therefore there maybe empty property, these people maybe holding out for higher prices but there probably wont be an overall shortage should people start dumping property. So its supply @ a particular price not just supply - I think

Don't get forget the tvs. My £700 lcd tv is what is stopping the £300k purchases

Can't we just nuke psychology and media studies students

I have a lcd tv an internet connection an ipod etc.. I am scared of paying back these ridiculouse prices. I could get into the mortgage debt prob with a !10% IO blah blah. The ipods and internet connections arent stopping me its the thought of horrendous debt and reposession thats stopping me. If you bought 10 years ago then average people can do it if you try and buy now it makes your eyes water. It was easy 10 years ago I bought my house with a months worth of wages for the deposit. My mum paid her mortgage from one nights work in catering at the sussex county hospital - one nights work - FFS - they paid £12k about 33 years ago for their 3 bed semi. Get fecking real. /end rant - nothing personal

I would imagine prime move have a VI in shifting properties at any price. Volume rather than price.

The getting people to have breaks etc. is very common in Burger Kings - I know someone who owns one and they want to reduce their wage bill. I thought it was a shark like practice then. Worse still the seats(for customers) are made to be uncomfortable after about 4 mins (I think). I am sure there are more. See reality cracking on Fravias site for more. url=http://www.searchlores.org]Searchlores[/url]