Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cakehead

  1. Yep. Bear in mind very few properties come onto the market in stagnant periods and there's always interest in the ones that do. By '97 they were pouring into EAs windows and going for top dollar. I managed to buy then, gambling that the variety compensated for the higher prices being asked. Finding the bottom of a housing market is much harder than calling the top.
  2. Quite a few, but probably not enough to bring the rental sector to its senses. The vision is compounded by memories of Sarah Beeny encouraging speculators not to put in that hardboard roof / drive in swimming pool / breakfast bar lavatory and still getting a fast return. The BTL'er making a killing has gone into folklore and the plain facts will take a while to catch up.
  3. It's because the SE housing market is lead by novelty. Instead of the protracted downturn taking years to pan out many of us expect, the media-lead southeasy believe the recession was that blip between '08 and '09. Having said that a family member who works in the city says it's been like a bloody beano since the summer and business is booming.
  4. I was looking in the most attractive villages surrounding a midland market town. Having bought and sold a good few houses over the years I can guarantee a couple of things, one, that there are bargains to be had, two, that they're few and far between and you have to be decisive when you see one whatever the market conditions. Where I take issue with many on this board is the belief that their ideal home will be suddenly affordable. If it's your ideal chances are it'll be a lot of other people's dream too and if it's affordable to you it will be attainable for others. Of course I'm talking about the middle market, if you're earning over £250k pa you may have additional financial leverage in upmarket properties. For the rest of us a property's desirability remains a fixed due to factors like location, era, condition, availability of similar properties, schools, transport links, etc. Financial restrictions may change and such a property could theoretically fall by 50% but it would mean the rest of the market falling by 80% or whatever. One factor that may distort the figures is unique or unusual properties tend to attract disproportionately inflated prices in boom periods, which means their price drops seem greater. That tells you nothing about the price of other 'lesser' properties in the area. Speaking as someone currently looking to buy my nice leafy Edwardian house in an uncompromised location I'd gain enormously if my summary of the facts was wrong. Experience suggests I am not but we shall see.
  5. Not in leafy Edwardiana if that's what you're suggesting. You're making a mistake not uncommon on this board of seeing vested interests where there are unpalatable facts. The HPC where all houses fall by a similar amount and deposit holders move seamlessly into their chosen gaff was always a myth. It was in the nineties and it is now. If it wasn't I'd have picked up a bargain in '91-6.
  6. Think it through and you'll realise that can't be the case. A desirable Edwardian 4 bed detached with original features on a leafy road in a high achieving school catchment falls the same percentage as ex-local authority house on a sink estate? They simply do not. Neither will defy market forces but the market dictates 100 people will be interested in the 4-bed detached maintaining a competitive element, whereas two or three might take a risk on the ex-council house. I don't agree with the OP's figures but he is right in principal, which is the curve peaks in properties with the right mix of desirability and affordability. Neither grotty flats in rough areas (to take one extreme) or Jacobean mansions with country estates (to take another) will attract a large enough market to maintain sufficient competition to keep prices high, relative to other factors. Attractiveness and financial attainability meet in the middle of category two and slope away either side of that point.
  7. Nobody's arguing prices dropped. The question is did they fall across all house types and locations by a similar percentage including asking and achieved values. Clearly they did not. As an example I bought a house at peak and sold it for 50% more in the trough three years later for having done a little remedial work and a lick of paint. You can't generalise.
  8. Indeed but the asking price at the EA was 'only' 25% more than I had to offer and we're talking about particulars being sent regularly and over a period of some years. The media and dinner party chatter would suggest someone would have bitten at 1/4 less than asking, but I can assure you none did. Some properties that could be described as bargains did appear, but they were very rare and were snapped up immediately, even in a stagnant market. It's also worth remembering that properties priced at peak are best described as notional, with only a very narrow window and limited number of sales representing that peak price, the working peak, i.e. the price at which property sold quickly and in numbers, is much less. The place we rented had been valued at £250k in '88 we were told, whereas the owner would have had to wait well into the noughties to have realised that price, probably about '05.
  9. I had £60k to spend on a house between '91 and '97 so I was looking at property in the £80k bracket, which is a reasonable definition of bargain. Although cheaper (and much more expensive) houses were selling for 25% less than asking price there were none in my target market even though some had a sign out for years. This was partly due to supply which meant competition for any new or interesting property that appeared. The market began to move upwards late '96 and the properties I liked sold for close to their asking price, as did the mass of others that appeared.
  10. It really isn't as you'd find out if you put a serious offer in on a house. You've provided one set of asking price comparisons in one area. I can guarantee that if I made three offers tomorrow in a grotty local area that were 25-30% below asking price at least one would be taken. If I put the same offer reduction in a middle / up market suburb I have in mind I wouldn't get a bite. Desirable properties in desirable areas will sell for a lower % reduction, averaged across similar property types, than less desirable property/locations, in a falling market. It's a fact of (competitive) life.
  11. Are we supposed to cut and paste anecdotes to see who wins? There will be exceptions to any rule and Crouch End is hardly middle england. The point still stands.
  12. Architecture and medical students were being offered mortgages in the 1970s.
  13. Put an offer in and see who's right. As I said earlier, there were no bargains in the 90s in group 2 and I looked every week for six years. The first category had houses for half price if you were prepared to buy one. House types and areas do not fall by the same percentage because the competition for them is not the same.
  14. There's a repetition of science, technical and engineering as worthy of attracting funding. These are declining areas in the UK economy, Britain's unique selling points are the creative industries which often overlap into technical areas and seed their regeneration and bring new ways of applying them. Technical disciplines for their own sake have no clear commercial applications and no-one can say what future demand will be. It's the usual cart before the horse social engineering that has seen UK manufacturing fade into a shadow of its former self. What's needed is innovation across the board and abandonment of old fashioned arbitrary divisions. That's before the nation estimates the financial and social cost of having 18-25 year olds lying idle and claiming social security payments.
  15. They clearly drop across the board, but not evenly. Hardest hit are grotty terraces in bad areas, new build residential blocks, 'executive' homes from the usual corporate builders. Traditional semis and detached in nice areas are more in demand and generally have owners with least need to sell. A 40% crash in the first category might see an 10% fall in the second. The two categories will never fall by the same percentage.
  16. I don't understand that building. Assuming the left hand side is original, why would it be narrow and terrace like when it's detached? The rest looks like someone knew a builder who'd been left with materials for a job that had fallen through. Either that or it's a film set.
  17. The Independent article is nonsense, who on earth shops because they see other people shopping? My friends will be receiving home-made Sloe Gin and chocolates and as they ask for the same each year I assume they enjoy them.
  18. This is nicer, two Victorian railway carriages with a roof: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1269014
  19. Looks like the Dalham house was a teensy teapot cottage that was extended piecemeal before planning regs troubled with building materials or stylistic continuity. It resembles a very small youth hostel, the usual competition for weirdly extended rural buildings of character.
  20. My agreement with the scenario given comes entirely from experience of the 80s crash. Despite assurances from the media and friends that house prices were falling exponentially, six years of looking in ladder two with a substantial deposit failed to reveal a single bargain.
  21. Buying a share in a privatised utility is profiteering because the issue is priced so the initial investor can't lose. Accepting a de-mutualisation payment is similarly loaded in favour of the 'gamble'. BTL mortgages are an extension of exactly the same principal, the only difference is the effects are obvious and not tucked away in an overseas sweatshop or South American logging camp or wherever the bottom line is. BTL chickens roost at home.
  22. BTL is the same as buying shares in a privatised utility. It's a government backed gamble with very favourable odds. Unless you buy very stupid it's hard to lose.
  23. The answer, clearly, is that all schools should be better, particularly the deprived ones. Even back in the day there were good secondary modern's and crap grammar schools - and vice versa. True social mobility will always be the preserve of the extremely intelligent (Oxbridge firsts, whatever their social background) and the gifted entrepreneur. As another ex-grammar school kid of an earlier generation told me, they were designed to create an administrative class for a functioning empire. Neither the administration nor the empire exists. Schools need to nurture imagination and self sufficiency in a changing world, not stream people into failure and success because they're rubbish at the three Rs or quizzes.
  • 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.