Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

devlin_adl

New Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About devlin_adl

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. Apparently, the other flat has now been sold STC. Don't know what the price is, though.
  2. Just a quick update: the sale went through in August, but the details have only just trickled online. The flat sold for the asking price of 499,999. The other flat, the one on sale for £1.25m, is still on the market, no sign of a price cut either.
  3. I have just noticed that another of my neighbours have put their flat up for sale. It's a two bedroom flat in Rotherhithe and the asking price is £1.25m. Be interesting to see how fast it goes...
  4. Just a quick update on the original property. It's now being listed as "Sold STC". I haven't been paying attention, so I don't know when they changed the status. Obviously, I don't know what the agreed sale price was.
  5. I accept what you say about definitions (personally, I wouldn't even call Yahoo a technology company - it's a new media company) but I do think that there is a fundamental difference between, say, Google (technology) and Rolls Royce (engineering).
  6. If the figures you posted were "correct", they were at the very least disingenuous, considering that they valued the broadcast television industry and the movie industry at a combined $43bn when Time Warner alone is worth $80bn. Engineering and technology are two seperate sectors as far as I am concerned (and The Times' share listings agree with me) so I firmly disagree with combining them together to create a larger industry. All the companies you mentioned are technology companies, not engineering. I firmly believe that tecnology is important for this country's future. Engineering... not so much.
  7. I'm not sure what your point is. Your figures were low and incorrect. I demonstrated that. Where did this "top trumps" idea come from? I certainly agree that we need more IT (maybe not "industry", but certainly IT), but then I never suggested anything to the contrary in my previous post.
  8. This seems a little weird to me. Consider that the major television networks are: ABC (Disney) CBS NBC (GE) Fox (News Corporation) CW (CBS/Time Warner) The major studios are: Disney Fox (News Corporation) Paramount (Viacom) MGM Sony Universal (GE) Warners (Time Warner) Now Disney currently has a market capitalisation of $67bn, Time Warner $80bn, Viacom $28bn, CBS $24bn - that's $200bn just there, not including MGM (owned by private equity), Sony, NBC Universal (a division of GE, but valued at $42bn for the purposes of the merger) or New Corporation.
  9. In defence of lawyers, I would say a couple of things: 1. One of the UK's major exports over the last few decades has been English law. Along with New York law, it is one of the pre-eminent legal systems in the commercial world. Thus a large chunk of the work done by commercial lawyers is international, often deals which have no connection with the UK whatsoever (because two parties from seperate countries can choose the legal system that governs their contract, and they frequently choose English law and, therefore, English lawyers). This brings billions of pounds into the UK economy and goes some way to rectifying the balance of payments deficit. So even if "Society" as a whole does not benefit, the UK economy certainly does. 2. Lawyers may not be wealth creators, but they certainly can be wealth enablers. This is bourne out by the classic prisoners' dilemma in game theory which demonstrates the role contracts have in producing mutually beneficial results which would otherwise not arise.
  10. An OK-ish ex-council flat in a high rise in central London. Rightmove SE16
  11. Here's what I know for sure: 1. He completed on the flat in October 2005 for a purchase price of £325k, as confirmed by nethouseprices.com, houseprices.co.uk, thisishouseprices.co.uk and uk.houseprices.yahoo.net. 2. The same property was recently put on the market for by two estate agents at £499,950 and £499,999, both listing on findaproperty.com. 3. No major renovation was done in the intervening period. 4. The estate agent listing the property at £499,999 is now stating that the property is "under offer" on its website. What I don't know is the offer price, or why the two estate agents are listing very slightly different prices. Do I think that he will get near his asking price? Yes, purely because an offer was put in so soon after it came on the market. He may or may not get his asking price, but I think it will be near.
  12. Well, it's already under offer according to one of the estate agent's website, and it's barely been on the market. Obviously I don't know what price is being offerred.
  13. Yes, it's on the river and close to a tube station and that probably does have a big impact on the price. The area is a bit of an odd mix of docklands refurbs and ex-council flats, but there are some "normal" houses as well, just not that many. Also, mea culpa, I got the date of the last completion wrong. Checking nethouseprices, it completed in October 2005, so that's a 54% price rise in 20 months...
  14. Nieghbour of mine completed the purchase of his flat for 325k in June 2005. Back on the market with two estate agents for asking prices of 499,950 and 499,999 (don't ask me why there's a discrepancy). Not sure if he'll get that, but people are viewing. It's a two bedroom flat in SE16, just under 800 square feet - about the size of what you'd call a starter home - with a small patio area (but no garden, obviously) with allocated parking (but no garage). Absolutely no renovation done since he bought it. At the asking price, that works out as a 54% rise in two years. Sure it's a nice part of London (according to the estate agents, we now live in "Rotherhithe Village"), but it's not that nice.
  15. From my experience, they'll still work in the City, they'll just hot-desk.
×
×
  • 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.