Findaproperty.com Listing Continue To Rise Dramatically

[ripandcap]

Search 260,011 properties for sale and rent from 5,189 estate agents

I think we can switch to a weekly review (much to the relief of the bulls and "neithers") from this point on as the numbers are growing too fast and big leaps add a little drama rather than the Chines torture method of a little at a time but non-stop.

By way of review, here is the the data from 17 days ago:

Search 245,319 properties for sale and rent from 4,957 estate agents

17th Jan 07

Quite a bump of 15,000 in just over 2 weeks. BTW, the number of EAs is to be ignored as FaP emailed to say that they had signed up a large EA about a week or so ago which may account for a few out of the 15,000 new listings. Their subscribers do not fluctuate by 100s each day.

The bottom line: there is no shortage as the EAs like to claim. Better buy now or someone else will get it..............

How many by next Sunday? Will the important 275k barrier be smashed?

So you think the rush for the exits is under way.....???

Edited February 4, 2007 by ripandcap

[Realistbear]

Almost as remarkable as the various % rates of return on your diverse investment portfolio you are quoting this week, started at 15, then jumped to 22 and the last one on offer today was 24%.

Another "neither!" Where have all the Bulls gone???

Averages for a number of funds was running at around 15%. Many broke 20% for the past 12 months.

Below is how I allocated my funds. Extremely conservative "low risk" for 90% of my portfolio with 10% for speculative buys such as UKCoal which made 300% over the past year.

Vanguard Wellington is my largest fund and is my "keeper" for the very long haul. It is also the world's oldest mutal fund founded back in the 1920's. It invests in bonds and large value large caps. As you can see it has nicely outpaced houses over the long haul and ran away from them in the last few years.

The beauty of mutuals is that you can diversify and sell on a moments notice if you have to with little or nothing by way of a penalty or commission. I am not over-confident on stocks/bonds at present and may liquidate a good portion again if things start to get too bumpy (5% or more to the downside).

For spare cash I invest invarious money markets both here and in the US. US is paying around 5.05% currently and the UK about the same in ISAs and online accounts. IN my area house prices are allegedly rising by around 3% so it is nice to have safe cash investments beating the market by a couple of percent. Hopefully, Merv will hike a few more times to push savings into the 6% range. I also think Ben will have to hike again later this year as inflation is only just starting in the US also.

Investing conservatively is a nice way to ride out the faltering housing market and to stay ahead of any "HPI" by a considerable margin. I like to earn at least double the return from investments if at all possible.

You know it makes sense.

My largest funds, and ones I would heartily recommend for STR-STM proceeds, are below but with a caution--be prepared to sell if the market looks like it is going to correct more than 5%. I got out (liquidated 80% of my funds) last May and stayed out for a couple of months as last summer did not look very pleasant to say the least. By selling and buying back in I was actually ahead by a small amount but overall thought the exercise was about neutral given the time and effort involved. A tough call these days.

Fidelity Diversified International Fund

Average Annual Total Returns

as of 01/31/2007

1 Year 15.54

3 Year 19.48

5 Year 18.29

Oakmark Global CL I

Average Annual Total Returns 3 (%)

as of 12/31/2006

1 Year 24.18

3 Year 17.59

5 Year 18.85

Fidelity Utilities Fund

Average Annual Total Returns

as of 01/31/2007

l.

1 Year 26.77

3 Year 20.24

5 Year 10.79

Oakmark Equity & Income CL I

Average Annual Total Returns

as of 12/31/2006

1 Year 10.82

3 Year 9.92

5 Year 9.88

Vanguard Wellington Fund Investor Shares

1 Year 3 Year 5 Year

07/01/1929

Wellington Fund Inv 14.97% 10.94% 8.95%

IMO, buying property this late in the cycle is possibly the worst investment on the planet.

Edited February 4, 2007 by Realistbear

[Realistbear]

So you think the rush for the exits is under way.....???

I think the numbers show a lot of property coming onto the market since "Bear Week" in the press around the middle of January.

If Merv and the lads hike again this month I would expect to see the entire BTL market collapse very soon.

Cue: The "Neithers"

Edited February 4, 2007 by Realistbear

[Realistbear]

RB, please explain what is so important about the 275k 'barrier'?

Why is 275k seen as a barrier? Who else is seeing 275k as a barrier? (besides you)

Its a bit of "tongue in cheek" as you hear so much about "support levels" and the "barriers" in gold and currencies etc. Stochastic jargon.

The market rises and falls and no one can predict where the precise turning point is. Many say that everytime the pound hits 2.00 it crashes shortly thereafter. This may be true but I don't think there is any magic in the round number other than it looks awfully high. There is a lot of psychology in the markets and signifiacnt milestones in numbers can influence the mind.

The 300k point on FaP will be a biggee for example. 275k? Nothing special.

[Without_a_Paddle]

Hey RB here's a press release from this very website for you to enjoy...

It seems to agree with everything you are saying about the current supply situation....

Can house prices in the UK stay at their current levels? We at Housepricecrash.co.uk (HPC) believe this is unlikely. With sales falling, supply increasing and demand falling this is creating a buyer?s market that can only lead to one thing: price reductions.

The rush to buy that many first time buyers felt in an atmosphere of rising house prices has abated due to the numerous comments in the press that prices are expected to stagnate or slowly rise. This might galvanise into a decision to hold off on a purchase if prices are seen to start falling. As one HPC member stated "As a frustrated first time buyer even if prices do fall I will wait to see how far they fall before buying".

Comments from the December report of property website Richtmove, such as "demand and supply are now severely out of kilter" reinforce our view that the balance has firmly switched from sellers to buyers as supply out numbers demand. Unsold property has risen for the sixth month from an average of 49 properties per estate agent branch to 67 over a third higher in the last year this coupled with a fall in the number of registered buyers creates a supply imbalance. The increasing property sale times and falling sales (32% to an average of 22 per surveyor in the November RICS report) are a consequence of this.

We feel that the much-heralded spring bounce in house prices will not materialise. Most anecdotal evidence implies that many sellers are holding back on putting their property to market until the traditionally more buoyant spring period. This could flood the market unbalancing supply and demand even further.

The new variable of this housing boom against the late eighties boom is the large number of amateur Buy To Let (BTL) investors. Unlike traditional owner-occupiers they will not be selling the roof over their heads; instead they will be selling an investment. If prices start to slide they are likely to rush to sell. If a crash does occur, it will be those investors that sell last who will lose the most. This thought might sway their thinking.

We feel that the downward pressure on prices will continue. The current imbalance in supply against demand makes current prices unsustainable. The question is if prices start to drop will it cause a stampede to sell pushing up the supply of housing and forcing prices ever lower?

Ends

D'oh! it was written two years ago!!!

What went wrong? House prices went up, UP and AWAY in 2005 and 2006....

[Guest grumpy-old-man]

Hey RB here's a press release from this very website for you to enjoy...

It seems to agree with everything you are saying about the current supply situation....

D'oh! it was written two years ago!!!

What went wrong? House prices went up, UP and AWAY in 2005 and 2006....

not in the North they didn't.....just wait until the real figures come out (when they have been adjusted)......they have been skeewed imo by withholding data & pumping it up with the luxury class properties added in more than once....all imho of course

4 bed detached house in my area peaked in July 2004.

[Realistbear]

Hey RB here's a press release from this very website for you to enjoy...

It seems to agree with everything you are saying about the current supply situation....

D'oh! it was written two years ago!!!

What went wrong? House prices went up, UP and AWAY in 2005 and 2006....

2005 was a down year for most (not all) of the country that is why Gordon dropped IR in August--to jump start the market again. 2006 was good for London and the SE but very patchy elsewhere and especially the W Midlands. Some areas even went DOWN--the Northeast, E Midlands etc. Now the VIs are all saying the market is cooling in 2007. IMO, it cooled in 2005 and never really heated up to where it could compete with a cash savings account at 5% least of all against a diversified mutual fund.

You should have sold your house and invested in a good diversifed mutual fund and enjoyed two to four times the return on houses.

You are entitled to your Bull point of view but even a bull seems to admit these days that Gordon's HPI-MEW economy cannot last much longer without a significant correction.

BTW--why don't you have "Bull" in your Avatar box?? "Neither" is bad enough--but nothing?

Edited February 4, 2007 by Realistbear

[Without_a_Paddle]

not in the North they didn't.....just wait until the real figures come out (when they have been adjusted)......they have been skeewed imo by withholding data & pumping it up with the luxury class properties added in more than once....all imho of course

4 bed detached house in my area peaked in July 2004.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_d...tml/region1.stm

North

Average Cost: £143,297

Detached: £245,367

Semi-detached: £141,200

Terraced: £108,398

Flat: £114,485

Change in last quarter: 3.9%

Change in last year: 9.4%

Sales: 15983

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

North West

Average Cost: £152,491

Detached: £280,306

Semi-detached: £155,102

Terraced: £105,056

Flat: £135,006

Change in last quarter: 4%

Change in last year: 9%

Sales: 33597

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yorks & Humber

Average Cost: £153,560

Detached: £253,686

Semi-detached: £145,469

Terraced: £112,838

Flat: £128,820

Change in last quarter: 4.3%

Change in last year: 8.5%

Sales: 28703

[Fred]

"Search 260,011 properties for sale and rent from 5,189 estate agents"

Now

259,928 properties for sale and rent from 5,189 estate agents

Hopefully just a blip

[Realistbear]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_d...tml/region1.stm

North

Average Cost: £143,297

Detached: £245,367

Semi-detached: £141,200

Terraced: £108,398

Flat: £114,485

Change in last quarter: 3.9%

Change in last year: 9.4%

Sales: 15983

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

North West

Average Cost: £152,491

Detached: £280,306

Semi-detached: £155,102

Terraced: £105,056

Flat: £135,006

Change in last quarter: 4%

Change in last year: 9%

Sales: 33597

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yorks & Humber

Average Cost: £153,560

Detached: £253,686

Semi-detached: £145,469

Terraced: £112,838

Flat: £128,820

Change in last quarter: 4.3%

Change in last year: 8.5%

Sales: 28703

All below 10%. You would have been better off selling your house and investing in a good diversified mutual fund to enjoy 20% + returns.

BTW--no one believes prices in the North went up at all--maybe 3% in the W Midlands. Lets see the real figures--FT Index.

In the meantime, here is the official data:

The North

Std Price: £145,519

Quarterly Change: +0.9%

Annual Change: +3.1%

http://www.hbosplc.com/economy/LatestRegio...sp?region=north

Of course, it all depends on what you want to read. I doubt the North saw anything like the huge return Halifax claim.

Edited February 4, 2007 by Realistbear

[Without_a_Paddle]

2005 was a down year for most (not all) of the country that is why Gordon dropped IR in August--to jump start the market again. 2006 was good for London and the SE but very patchy elsewhere and especially the W Midlands. Some areas even went DOWN--the Northeast, E Midlands etc. Now the VIs are all saying the market is cooling in 2007. IMO, it cooled in 2005 and never really heated up to where it could compete with a cash savings account at 5% least of all against a diversified mutual fund.

You should have sold your house and invested in a good diversifed mutual fund and enjoyed two to four times the return on houses.

You are entitled to your Bull point of view but even a bull seems to admit these days that Gordon's HPI-MEW economy cannot last much longer without a significant correction.

BTW--why don't you have "Bull" in your Avatar box?? "Neither" is bad enough--but nothing?

I don't see the point of badges (or lengthy propaganda signatures at the foot of every post).

If you want to wear a label then that's fine by me.

[Guest grumpy-old-man]

All below 10%. You would have been better off selling your house and investing in a good diversified mutual fund to enjoy 20% + returns.

BTW--no one believes prices in the North went up at all--maybe 3% in the W Midlands. Lets see the real figures--FT Index.

In the meantime, here is the official data:

The North

Std Price: £145,519

Quarterly Change: +0.9%

Annual Change: +3.1%

http://www.hbosplc.com/economy/LatestRegio...sp?region=north

Of course, it all depends on what you want to read. I doubt the North saw anything like the huge return Halifax claim.

exactly RB, time will tell.

[Realistbear]

I don't see the point of badges (or lengthy propaganda signatures at the foot of every post).

If you want to wear a label then that's fine by me.

Okay but are you a bull or a bear on house prices?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,...2577163,00.html

The Sunday Times February 04, 2007

The market

Graham Norwood

# House prices in England and Wales rose 0.7% in December and

7.8% in 2006

, according to the Land Registry. The average home cost £173,717 at the end of the year. London was again the driving force — prices there rose 2% in December alone, taking the full-year price rise in the capital to 10.4% and an average home to £314,550. The biggest price rise last year was in Neath, south Wales, where prices rose 14%. The lowest was in Darlington, where prices dropped 0.4%.

# Two surveys using January data, however, show the market starting to slow. Hometrack, using estate agents’ data, says

prices in 72% of postcodes across England and Wales remained static in January

. Average prices overall rose 0.4% but that was because high increases in London skewed the figure, says spokesman Richard Donnell. “London values grew by 0.8% but growth across all other regions was below average, ranging from no change in the east Midlands to +0.3% in the southeast and East Anglia.”

# Meanwhile the

Nationwide building society, using mortgage data, says house prices are rising at their slowest rate since last May.

Prices increased 0.3% in the past month with annual property inflation at 9.3%, down from 10.5% four weeks ago. The price of a typical house in the UK is now £173,225. The number of new buyer inquiries also fell in January, for the first time in 19 months, bringing demand more into balance with the supply of homes.

# The biggest price rises in northern England in 2006 will be on the outskirts of towns, predicts Allsops estate agency. “Those on the M62 and M1 corridors will outperform city and town centres,” it says. It warns that many buy-to- let investors are so stretched, interest rate rises mean they are “forced to top up their investment each month without the prospect of great capital gains”.

# A specialist mortgage lender says

buy-to-let yields are now at a five-year low

because capital values have risen significantly since 2002. Landlord Mortgages says yields — the proportion of a home’s purchase price recovered through rent in a year — have dropped in England from 7.1% in 2002 to 5.74% now, with London yields down from 6.37% to 5.8%.

Don't forget that the LR figure of 7.8% is national with Londond and the SE skewing the average by a considerable margin. Also, fewer, more expensive houses selling can bend the stats considerably. FT Index probably a better guide as to what is happening in the market.

[Realistbear]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_d...tml/region1.stm

North

Average Cost: £143,297

Detached: £245,367

Semi-detached: £141,200

Terraced: £108,398

Flat: £114,485

Change in last quarter: 3.9%

Change in last year: 9.4%

Sales: 15983

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

North West

Average Cost: £152,491

Detached: £280,306

Semi-detached: £155,102

Terraced: £105,056

Flat: £135,006

Change in last quarter: 4%

Change in last year: 9%

Sales: 33597

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yorks & Humber

Average Cost: £153,560

Detached: £253,686

Semi-detached: £145,469

Terraced: £112,838

Flat: £128,820

Change in last quarter: 4.3%

Change in last year: 8.5%

Sales: 28703

House prices were doing poorly in 2005 and had 14 months in a row of bad returns which is what prompted Gordon to tell the BoE to drop rates in Augsut 2005. Another good year to be out of houses and in diversified stock funds:

House prices fall for 14th month says Hometrack

Friday 26th August 2005: 11:30

By Matthew West

House prices have declined for the 14th month in a row according to the latest survey from Hometrack.

Click here to let us know your thoughts on the new site

Prices fell 0.1%, during August according to the research, with the national average house price now standing at £161,000 down from a peak of £161,7000 in June last year and representing

a decline of 3.7% over the last twelve months

.

According to the official data for 2006 the national HPI figure was only 5.7%. About the same as a nice savings account but about one fourth of the return on a decent diversified stock fund.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/media/files/lifes...anuary-2007.pdf

Edited February 4, 2007 by Realistbear

[Guest d23]

According to the official data for 2006 the national HPI figure was only 5.7%. About the same as a nice savings account but about one fourth of the return on a decent diversified stock fund.

what would the return on investing in US$ over the last 3 years be?

[Without_a_Paddle]

All below 10%. You would have been better off selling your house and investing in a good diversified mutual fund to enjoy 20% + returns.

OK let's see. 10% HPI vs 20% on the stock market over the last year.

Lets say the house was £200k and it was owned outright.

Therefore it's STR into the SM vs buy a bigger house...

The nice thing about this comparison is that some of the costs cancel out. The rent is about the same as the new IO mortgage and there are selling fees and moving fees in both cases.

Let's do the SM option. £200k grows 20% to £240k. Knock off £7k CGTax and you end up with £235k.

That's a gain of £35k.

Now let's look at the housebuyer.

Sells £200k house and buys house for £350k.

It goes up 10% to £385k.

That's also a gain of £35k but the homeowner has already been in the nicer house 1 year and doesn't have to move house again unlike the STR stuck in a £200k rental (sorry, but the equiv of a £150k IO loan only rents a £200k house if you are lucky)

Who had the easier time over the year and lived in the nicer house? Who had to abide by the rules of a LL? Who has to move house the most number of times?

Edited February 4, 2007 by Without_a_Paddle

[hezzaa]

You are wonderfully ridiculous RB. I think you should work for Labour you have so much spin capacity. The reality is that the vast vast majority of home owners gain something much more than financial reward from owning a property. Given that this is the case we dont own property and see HPI as the number one factor. Yes in the last few years people have rushed onto the housing ladder but I believe this has not been so much about wanting to cash in but not wanting to be frozen out from doing something that the British as obsessed with- buying their own home. Given this why suggest house owners should sell up and get a better retuen from a field they now very little about financial investment.

People know that owning property is relatively safe at most points of entry if you take a long run perspective- house prices over 20, 30, 40 and up years have always risen, an indisputable fact. So while we start to buy our houses we feel safe in the knowledge that Houses are rising at a higher rate over the long run than inflation. Given all this why dont you stop your carping RB and let people get on with it. If you were making long run observations it would be fine but the reality is you are trying to do something which I think is a bit sad- induce a HPC. Sadly this is for your own gain and makes you just as bad as the speculators that are frothing HPI.

Finally if you believe that prices have not risen to a fair extent over the lasst three years then you are mad!

A quote from Nationwide house price calculator:

A property located in West Midlands which was valued at £250000 in Q1 of 2003, would be worth approximately £336840 in Q4 of 2006.

This is equivalent to a change of 34.74%.

But properties havent really risen atall have the RB- what a sham and a mockery. You seem able to quote not statistically tested anecdotle evidence like that from FAP yet when you dont like the data it is made up by those with vested interests.

Answer the charges against you RB you look more like a bafoon than a realistbear!

[Realistbear]

OK let's see. 10% HPI vs 20% on the stock market over the last year.

Lets say the house was £200k and it was owned outright.

Therefore it's STR into the SM vs buy a bigger house...

The nice thing about this comparison is that some of the costs cancel out. The rent is about the same as the new IO mortgage and there are selling fees and moving fees in both cases.

Let's do the SM option. £200k grows 20% to £240k. Knock off £7k CGTax and you end up with £235k.

That's a gain of £35k.

Now let's look at the housebuyer.

Sells £200k house and buys house for £350k.

It goes up 10% to £385k.

That's also a gain of £35k but the homeowner has already been in the nicer house 1 year and doesn't have to move house again unlike the STR stuck in a £200k rental (sorry, but the equiv of a £150k IO loan only rents a £200k house)

Who had the easier time over the year and lived in the nicer house? Who had to abide by the rules of a LL? Who has to move house the most number of times?

I don't actually believe the 10% figure. That's the problem--all the stats are different and are not based on reality with some VIs even using "asking prices" to show the market trend. IN my area prices went down in 2005 according to the above post, 2006 was poor at around 3%. A generic savings account would have beated property in this part of the country for the last couple of years.

On taxes, I am in a unique position as most of my invetsments are in a US account which is a bit complicated tax-wise. I have dumped quite a lot into tax sheltered accounts and the rest isn't taxed at a very high rate given the US tax structure. I have to declare my income to HM C & R here but the double taxation treaty kicks in on dividends and such like.

You would not believe who, or rather what, is my LL and I am not going to say! Suffice it to say they are a dream and it is like owning your own gaff with no interference and zero chance of being thrown out due to a sale. The "lease" is as long as I want to make it. A different situation to most I agree.

The problem with your calculations is that you have to sell the house to make the gain. Until then its theory. With stocks/mutuals the theory can become an instant reality at the click of the mouse. I have already taken the profits on most of my minority stockholding in UKCoal and I am researching the next largish investment. In my former days I would have treated myself to a nice motor but see new cars as a bit like houses in this current market situation: bound to depreciate as soon as you drive it off the lot.

The nice thing about renting with STM funds building nicely at around 15% average is that you are actually growing rich without any risk to the downside (click of the mouse) whereas the house market is cooling and history tells us that crashes do occur and especially where inflation has been as high as it has been. Meanwhile you live in a big house, effectively "free" and can enjoy the HPC wihtout fear of losing it all, especially if you are overgeared or a hapless BTLer.

If I owned a house at this present time it would probably be about 100k less than the value of the one I am renting. On that basis it seems senseless to even think about buying. In fact, I am considering "going German" for the long term as "owning" seems to be more in the mind of the owner than in reality. Who owns the house if you can't pay the taxes?

[Realistbear]

You are wonderfully ridiculous RB. I think you should work for Labour you have so much spin capacity. The reality is that the vast vast majority of home owners gain something much more than financial reward from owning a property. Given that this is the case we dont own property and see HPI as the number one factor. Yes in the last few years people have rushed onto the housing ladder but I believe this has not been so much about wanting to cash in but not wanting to be frozen out from doing something that the British as obsessed with- buying their own home. Given this why suggest house owners should sell up and get a better retuen from a field they now very little about financial investment.

People know that owning property is relatively safe at most points of entry if you take a long run perspective- house prices over 20, 30, 40 and up years have always risen, an indisputable fact. So while we start to buy our houses we feel safe in the knowledge that Houses are rising at a higher rate over the long run than inflation. Given all this why dont you stop your carping RB and let people get on with it. If you were making long run observations it would be fine but the reality is you are trying to do something which I think is a bit sad- induce a HPC. Sadly this is for your own gain and makes you just as bad as the speculators that are frothing HPI.

Finally if you believe that prices have not risen to a fair extent over the lasst three years then you are mad!

A quote from Nationwide house price calculator:

A property located in West Midlands which was valued at £250000 in Q1 of 2003, would be worth approximately £336840 in Q4 of 2006.

This is equivalent to a change of 34.74%.

But properties havent really risen atall have the RB- what a sham and a mockery. You seem able to quote not statistically tested anecdotle evidence like that from FAP yet when you dont like the data it is made up by those with vested interests.

Answer the charges against you RB you look more like a bafoon than a realistbear!

Another declared "bull" congratulations on taking a stand.

I bought my first house in Guildford in 1977. I have owned houses every year until 2003 when I moved back to England for job reasons.

Why buy now? Why not sit out the crash and buy latert when houses have dropped 30-50%?

I am renting a larger house than I would have bought and am seeing an average return of 15% on my proceeds of sale from my last house which is outpacing the housing market by a huge margin.

In my area house prices have hardly moved since 2004 with 2005 being a negative and 2006 barely 3%. 2007 is supposed to be cooling even further. Why buy??

It is the job of Bulls to be true to their name: bullish.

It is my job as a Bear to be bearish: hence my desire to see a mighty and all encompassing crash the like of which will make Great Crash 1 look like a mild blip. Why? Because HPI is inflationary. It has zero positives despite Gordon's claim that we have never been richer or bought so many goods. We have record debt because of HPI--go figure as the Americans would say.

[Bini]

Quote "hezzaa Posted Today, 05:34 PM "

"People know that owning property is relatively safe at most points of entry if you take a long run perspective- house prices over 20, 30, 40 and up years have always risen, an indisputable fact. So while we start to buy our houses we feel safe in the knowledge that Houses are rising at a higher rate over the long run than inflation"

Yes, but think of how much one is actually paying for them. House in 1996, 50K, pay 100K over 25 years or so with mortgage. Same house in 2006, 200K, pay back 400K over 25 years maybe much much more over 40 years.

That's 300K+ of one's money, one could have spent on something else, rather than giving it to a bank. People tend to forget this.

[Without_a_Paddle]

Quote "hezzaa Posted Today, 05:34 PM "

"People know that owning property is relatively safe at most points of entry if you take a long run perspective- house prices over 20, 30, 40 and up years have always risen, an indisputable fact. So while we start to buy our houses we feel safe in the knowledge that Houses are rising at a higher rate over the long run than inflation"

Yes, but think of how much one is actually paying for them. House in 1996, 50K, pay 100K over 25 years or so with mortgage. Same house in 2006, 200K, pay back 400K over 25 years maybe much much more over 40 years.

That's 300K+ of one's money, one could have spent on something else, rather than giving it to a bank. People tend to forget this.

What would you have spent it on instead? Rent?

[hezzaa]

23 days on since the original post where are we?

260,361 properties now on the website up from 245,319

This represents 654 a day which is pretty small given that we are heading for spring selling season. Still the number of estate agents rises in an almost perfect line to suggest it is the increase in estate agents not properties which explains the rise.

RB why do you accept the number of houses as statistically vailid but not the number of estate agents.

Selective use of information to suit you is a little myopic

[dog]

23 days on since the original post where are we?

260,361 properties now on the website up from 245,319

This represents 654 a day which is pretty small given that we are heading for spring selling season. Still the number of estate agents rises in an almost perfect line to suggest it is the increase in estate agents not properties which explains the rise.

RB why do you accept the number of houses as statistically vailid but not the number of estate agents.

Selective use of information to suit you is a little myopic

654 a day and we are only at the begining of February!!!!! Primelocation have also been swamping me with properties for sale. I sense a growing panic.

[Realistbear]

23 days on since the original post where are we?

260,361 properties now on the website up from 245,319

This represents 654 a day which is pretty small given that we are heading for spring selling season. Still the number of estate agents rises in an almost perfect line to suggest it is the increase in estate agents not properties which explains the rise.

RB why do you accept the number of houses as statistically vailid but not the number of estate agents.

Selective use of information to suit you is a little myopic

I emailed FaP to ask them about the huge variations in EAs and dramatic rise in the number of properties that began with Bear Week (17th Jan). They replied to the effect that they had recently contracted with a large EA. No comment on the large increases in the available properties. Not dozens or even hundreds of EAs added, but a single large EA. Thus the relevance in the raw numbers showing increases in supply.

[hezzaa]

So you are happy to accept the statistical variaton on a website which makes no sense ass being nothing. Estate Agent numbers are rising as dramtically as properties and they have no explanation for this. Dont you find this disturbing as your primary source of evidence for a stampede?!

What do they say when questioned about this?