The largest ever fall in asking prices has been reported by Rightmove this morning.
It says that new sellers have chopped their asking prices by an average of 3.3%, equating to £7,772. In London, asking prices have come down by an average of almost £20,000, or 4%, to stand at £464,398, down from £483,709 in November. It is the largest fall in London since 2007.
Nevertheless, the latest average asking price of £236,761 is still way ahead of actual sales prices as quoted by the Land Registry, Halifax and Nationwide.
Rightmove is also forecasting a national rise in house prices of 2%, saying there will be a shortage of supply.
Rightmove director Miles Shipside said: “December is the most likely month for sellers coming to market to get very real about the price they ask for their homes. This year, they’ve gone a bit further than ever before.”
On Rightmove’s predictions for next year, Shipside said that the froth would continue to come off the London market. However, he warned that transaction levels would stay muted, with new listings likely to be around 1.2m.
Shipside said of the gap between asking and selling prices that this is now just 3.7%, and said there was ‘a very strong correlation’ between now and the boom market of 2007, when sellers accepted bids of only 2.6% below their asking price.
He said: “While cash buyers still have the greatest negotiating power, they are more prevalent and wield less power than they used to. It is estimated that around one-third of all transactions are currently cash purchasers and this ‘wall of cash’ shows no sign of abating, despite earlier predictions that it wouldn’t last.
“This helps to underpin prices in favoured locations and fuel demand in investor properties.”
However, the gap between asking prices on Rightmove and actual prices quoted by other sources still looks to be in need of considerable further explanation.
Halifax and Nationwide’s latest mortgage-agreed house sale figures are £158,426 and £164,153 respectively – in agreement with the Land Registry’s latest average selling price of £161,605, quoted for October.
%20(002).png)
.png)
Comments
Happy Chappy:
Firstly, I also wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy and prosperous New Year.
2012 has seen many things change. You went from UnHappy to your current blissful state. I have made the conscious decision to re-engage the world of Estate Agency (although in fairness it has been helped along by other circumstances...). But what hasn't REALLY changed - much - is the housing market. Up a smidgeon here; down a gnat's chuff there - but we are still seeing transactions taking place many times every single day.
You say that entering the EA world is a brave move. I see it as a fantastic opportunity to make a difference - EXACTLY the same as I felt in 1992 (another 'low' in the historics...), when I last entered the profession. As you know, Happy - my glass is ALWAYS brim full! ;o)
Technically, I have never really left it (as, among a multitude of other property-related tasks, I do market properties for sale - just not for paying customers) - but the idea of rolling my sleeves up and actually being back in a branch or three excites me tremendously.
Enough of that, though.
I have been previously extra verbose (usually with my mates rant & Sibley's...) over my PERSONAL feelings on house prices. I won't go through them all again - save to say that I am required to do what is best for the seller - NOT the buyer. The seller pays my wages; what I (or an Estate Agent) achieve for the seller determines their ability to proceed with the transaction... in other words the only way to keep all parties happy. Seller gets what they want: buyer gets what they want. Job's a goodun! ;o)
If I let my personal feelings (which would be fuelled simply by my wish for my son to be able to purchase his own property...) get into the way, then I caould not do my job to the best of my ability - simple as.
When my son wants to buy - then I will assist him by negotiating down the price of the property he wishes to buy in exactly the same way that I assisted his brother. But obviously, it won't be one that I am selling!!
Hmmm... do I have a problem with the concept of 'banning' BTL purchases? Yes, in a nutshell - but probably not for the reasons you think.
Look - lenders lend based on security against risk, yes? IF a lender believed that the proposed advance was a risk too far - then they would simply not lend. You need to face up to the fact that SOME properties that are rented are so by virtue that the tenant either does not WANT to own their own property - or for whatever reason simply CAN'T. For these individuals or families, these BTLers are providing a roof over their head that they otherwise could not have.
Sellers have a free choice when they offer their properties for sale as to whether they accept any offer from any particular buyer. A BTL investor is, in the main, a more sure bet than yer average 'live-in' buyer as they generally have the finance tied up well before setting out to buy something. BUT... a BTLer generally wants the property at a discount in order to make the investment stack up as well as possible.
SO - buyer with a 'better' pedigree - or a better offer but more chance of being refused finance? Those are the choices that the vendor has in front of themselves.
But at least they have a choice.
In MY opinion, Happy, removing an entire sector of the buying pool will do untold damage not only to the sales market in general, but also to the availability of quality rental stock for those who seek better than the dives and hovels with hot and cold running water down the living room walls.
I think that you would simply be robbing Peter to pay Paul... and that poor Mary would be left out in the cold!
Hi Peebe,
Firstly Merry Christmas,
I wish you every success in the New Year, re-engaging in the market now is brave but perhaps wise move, you know i have been dabbling. Well done
Apologies I was in little bit of huff yesterday due to SKYinforming me that due to moving house and BT being extreamely busy I will have no internet connection at home until nearly february!!!!!
I was gazumped twice in the 90's i understand it well, it yink the scottish model goes a long way o preventing this, and we should adopt it here.
Ok you got me "you have never said you wanted lower prices...It was quagmire he said most EA's wouild prefer a sharp correction. However with a son wanting a buy presumably his would help his situation (if you have a portfolio i see why you would not want a corection)
My concept was not aimed at mortgagers!!! I think my posts have explained I believe anyone buying a property to live in should be given prefferential treatment to investor.
So If Buy to let mortages were simply banned this would go a long way to achieveing this!
Do you have a problem with this concept....or just think it will never work?
Happy Chappy (enough teasing... you know I said it in jest...)
Firstly - HANG ON A COTTON PICKIN' MINUTE!!! What do you mean, "...unlike you who is so far up Peebees I can barely see you toes nails!"? Why bring ME into your ongoing spat with this poster - the berk probably thinks as little of me and my opinions than he/she does yours...
Yes - I WAS an Estate Agent - for a decade and a half. AND, watch this space - PeeBee is aiming to 're-engage', like Maverick did on Top Gun. I've missed the thrill of the fight so much, I'm planning to kick it all off again in 2013!! ;o)
SO... your question was "Do the terms gazumping and gazundering mean anything to you?" Yes, thank you. They are technicalities that the vast majority of the population do not understand. What is YOR understanding of them, and I will advise you if your interpretation is correct or not - and more to the point, what about them? MY point was made around what I described as "USUALLY" being the case. USUALLY - in what people mistakenly describe as a "normal" market, and CERTAINLY in a poor one - one offer is what you get on the vast majority of sales. Once solicitors are instructed, surveys are done and the Agent feels semi-confident enough to clag an Under Offer slip on their board (with the vendor's prior approval, of course...), you don't see offers coming in from other parties. SOME may wish to place a note of interest on the property just in case the wheel comes off - but, again, NORMALLY they will move on and try to secure an available property instead of one which only has a double-digit at best percentage chance of being made available to them. Now, if we are talking about boom periods - that may well be a different story... but we won't see one of them for a while, matey!
Two quotes here of note:
"I have suggested nothing about sealed bids! Dont put words in my mouth"
I simply pointed out that in order to know what bids were going to be on the table (as per your post wanting preferential treatment towards non mortgage-laden purchasers), something along the lines of sealed bids would be necessary. You also haven't answered the main point about what I raised there within, Happy.
"Banning buy to let would reduce prices quicker something Peebee said he wants..."
Sorry??? WHEN did I say I wanted that?? To use the words of a great thinker (...but should think a bit more methinks...) - "Don't put words in my mouth"!
SO... how's about you revisit your fatally flawed utopian view of not being able to have an offer accepted on a property if you are already a mortgagor.
This being the case - HOW will second/third etc steppers move up the ladder? And HOW could they be given priority over others that also have mortgages - but on properties they rent out - when they are in exactly the same financial situation of being encumbered by mortgage, are they not?
The floor... is yours, mon ami! ;o)
Effectively, you're looking to close the free market?
BTL is not necessarily someone having a jolly, smoking cigars, sipping champagne and bathing in cash.
I know people who have a btl as their sole pension plan.
I know others that live in expensive areas, chose to rent, so they could BTL in a different part of the country.
Your motivation is good, but the solutions aren't quite there.
As a seller of course not.....does the whole economy have to pander house sellers????
I hear the supply and demand often used here so there is enough demand for shelter to ban BTL for the sake of our society and economy long term.
(Does anyone remember when yuo were only allowed 1 mortgage)
(note there is not enough demand in terms of credit supply this is why less people own more of available) property.
Banning buy to let would reduce prices quicker something Peebee said he wants , this would eventually result in increased tranasction (accrording to people lower in the post)
So will it happen? No not all there are more homeowners than renters and not all the time most of the political classes are property investors.
What about introducing rent caps like in Germany?
I know the difference between there and their. Sorry if my poor grammar annoys you. I won't rectify this as this is not an English language forum.
HC - you're digging a hole now. Would you market your home for sale and only allow 'priority' negotations with those who have no mortgage or wholy owned property in their name?
No. There is your argument finished. As a seller, why would you exclude significant sectors of your market?!
Know your 'their' and 'there'!
See the light....
I normally try and keep converstations on topic and polite ....but just for you at least i am up my own.....unlike you who is so far up Peebees I can barely see you toes nails!
Rationing scarce resources is not a new concept
Often BTL investors see properties before the geneal public.....I know I get to see a lot of below market value invesment opportunity junkl...The parctise of EA's offering properties to there developer pals first could be made illegal
"Once an offer is accepted, USUALLY, no further offers are tendered". Were you really an EA before????
Do the terms gazumping and gazundering mean anything to you.
If you really support that once an offer is accepted a deal is done you will be a supporter of the UK adopting Scottish property law....do you ?
Sellers want the best price :
I already stated where offers are comparable a ftb could be given priority, Why would it slow turnaround? speed depends on the slowest link in the process.
Little hassle possible - why would making first time buyers with viable credit history be more hassle than a an investor?
I have suggested nothing about sealed bids! Dont put words in my mouth
Am i saying could (perhaps should) FT'bers, second steppers, third steppers be given prioirity over investors abso bloody loutely !!
Back to you SheBee (i can be immature too :0)
Slappy, if you pull yer head out of ya **** you can see what you type.
Happy Baccy... oops, sorry... ;o)
Just ONE reason? And not even a GOOD reason?
Okay - make my like easy, why don't you...
Because... SELLERS WON'T GO FOR IT!
In the main, matey, sellers want
a) the best possible price
b) the quickest turnaround
c) little hassle as possible
d) erm... there is no 'd)'
In your example you are assuming that there are a number of offers coming in for a particular property. In the main, you end up with one. Vendor won't give a fuppeny tuck WHO that buyer is, or WHERE their money is coming from... as long as it lands in their account for them to do with whatever they please.
Once an offer is accepted, USUALLY, no further offers are tendered.
You seem to be suggesting that all sales be agreed by sealed bid, and that those who do bid must be FTBs or cash sales. restrict yourself to FTBs - who are going to buy the second step properties (just think about that one for a sec before responding...) - and CASH buyers are exactly who you want frozen out of the market, as they will probably already own a couple of streets' worth of properties.
I invite you back to the floor, matey...!
Give me one reason why this could not or should not be applied.
I often hear the property should be a home not an investment.
I am not trying to win an election, I am however disillusioned with all the main parties who have favoured asset wealth over production.
"One way - In future ensure priority must be given to buyer who does not already have a mortgage or wholy owned property in there name (offer prices being equal of course)"
Erm.... Happy Chappy? More like Happy Baccy, methinks... ;o)
Come the next election (...for which you already have one upstanding Member, I understand from your previous posts...) I wish your party the very best of luck with THIS manifesto, bonny lad - you're gonna need it!
*Punctuation
and spelling
:0) must be my dyslexic fingers!!!!!
Sorry i think we are in voilent agreement :0) what i meant was i also believe that not all people can own a home. (punction and dictation error)
Home ownership is at its lowest percentage for many years in terms of the population and we are building less houses. It is an undeniable fact less (or businesses) people own more of the availble stock .
There are many ways we could redistribute housing stock
One way - In future ensure priority must be given to buyer who does not already have a mortgage or wholy owned property in there name (offer prices being equal of course)
Happy Chappy:
"Sorry another point here you say home ownership is unachievable I take it you mean for all...if so i agree."
Then... we disagree, it seems. What I ACTUALLY said was "But there will always be SOME that, regardless of how low the bar is set, home ownership is inachievable."
Nine hundred thousand 'new' cases ...(not necessarily 900000 INDIVIDUALS, of course...) of ownership a year, Sir - and that's when the market is at its' recent historic lowest... I rest my case in that respect.
"However it is become less achievable for more people or less people are owning more of the homes
Now we can change that...if we want to"
The floor is yours, Happy Chappy....
Sorry another point here you say home ownership is unachievable I take it you mean for all...if so i agree.
However it is become less achievable for more people or less people are owning more of the homes
Now we can change that...if we want to
Peebee,
No problem seems we are cut form the same cloth
However, you may not have come across Maslow's Hierachy of needs.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
Buyinig a luxuy car is WANT.....the need is a means to travle. So the alternatives to buying or leasing and Aston Martin are endless....buy much a cheaper car (most do), go by public transport, walk, get a bicycle.
With shelter, it is basic need
Basically you have a only 2 acceptable choices buy or rent...both are very expensive.
But lets look at the options if you cant If you cant afford to rent : Stay with parents (if you can or even if you have them) , camp, buy a caravan, squat, sleep rough (all not sounding grea to your average person are they)
what does your son do?
OR
Get a loan to buy your own place sounds very appealing huh and the banks were only too willing to lend to people people that could not afford to rent or therefore buy.
Happy Chappy: "You are very good and picking out individual words to make an argument I'll give you that !"
Erm... rich coming from a bloke who can split hairs better than Oppenheimer ever dreamed he could manage with the atom!
SO... being a cheeky little minx and picking out words once again...
"Buying an Aston a luxury item on credit is very different from buying a necessity (i.e shelter)"
WHY is it so different? Is shelter a "necessity" - yes I would agree (but in reality it is a luxury that we are lucky enough to enjoy...). Is it a necessity to BUY said shelter - no. It is a lifestyle choice.
"Remember the public have had the "dont miss the boat, get on the housing ladder now before its too late" mantra drummed into them." Yes - but they have the option of ignoring that mantra. Again, they have a choice.
"Many buyers will have felt they had very little choice but to over leverage themselves"
A-HA!! So NOW the magical word "choice" comes into the equation! Know what - the first couple of times I read your post I didn't even spot it - until I got this far.
SO... now there is the element of choice permitted to sneak in. Only you suggest that the only option was Hobson's choice.
I repeat. They had a choice. A FREE choice.
Every year, many hundreds of thousands make that free choice. Those that want to - and are in the fortunate position to be ABLE to - will buy a home if the 'right' home becomes available to them.
Do I 'feel' for those that WANT to but are UNABLE to do that - of course I do. One of my own offspring is currently in that position.
But there will always be some that, regardless of how low the bar is set, home ownership is inachievable. Neither you nor I can 'fix' that; that Wadsworth bloke and his political agenda can't 'fix' it - NO-ONE can. That has been proven throughout history.
Upward/downward price corrections simply move the bar. An ideal world would see the bar staying put.
We don't live in an ideal world, I am sorry to say,
Quagnmire, please define sensible lending and LTV ratios.
Your Christmas list sounds great.....and I am all for a free market but i'm not sure it ever really exists (or ever will)
@ Happy.
I would like sensible lending, reasonable LTV’s and a free market as a result.
Also on my xmas list I would like sensible surveyors, efficient solicitors and a reduction in my Rightmove subs but I fear my stocking may be empty.
tories won in 1993 after raising interest rates to 15%
the current thinking is economic madness
The only other example is Japan where properties fell for 20 years and the kids left the country
in fact their debt is twice gdp
wages are falling because other countries are becoming more educated and adept and will work for much much less
after all we are 75% service industry
some think we are in really bed shape
simple.
Get your product correct and price competitive and the buyers will find you. doesnt matter what time of year.
Why would you advise a vendor to wait to reduce the price till January only to be competing with twice the amount of proeprties because all of the sleepy agents cant be bothered to get on the phone and punt it out and advise that Jan is better. isnt Jan one of the most depressive months with credit card bills coming in from the festive period
May not have as many buyers this time of year but boy are they motivated, and will buy if you find the right one for them. Remeber folks, buyers buy on emotion not the fact its Christmas.
We get Vendors saying 'lets wait till christmas' but not many buyers say the same.
Quagmire: You did say "Most EA's would prefer a sharp correction than death by a thousand cuts" I assumed thats what you wanted so.....If you are not calling for a correction what do you want? Prices up quickly or slowly, down quickly or slowly, or stable?
I would like to see a slow drift down in house prices or gradual increase in wages. I think the former is more likely. Please noe this has nothing to do with my own personal circumstances no VI here.
Ok you have a point with Dave but no one can say his position isnt clear :0)
…and you Happy are very good at putting words in people’s mouths. I never said I was calling for a correction. I said most EA’s would find it preferable to the way the market has operated over the last 5 years or so.
I would suggest dave gets stick because of his hatred of EA’s, a desire to see us out of work and bankruptcy for anyone who owns a BTL…..ohh and the fact he brings nothing to the discussion apart from a comparison with Japan.
Peebee -
I wont go into detail about how i hold it...but it need both hands! ;0)
You are very good and picking out individual words to make an argument I'll give you that !
Ok so a credit boom allowed rather than caused prices to accelerate. However, the credit boom was engineered it did not happen by accident, The banks, and the government had the power to intervene and chose not to.
Buying an Aston a luxury item on credit is very different from buying a necessity (i.e shelter) Remember the public have had the "dont miss the boat, get on the housing ladder now before its too late" mantra drummed into them.
Many buyers will have felt they had very little choice but to over leverage themselves.
So 900K seemingly good prices agreed achieved ok.....but will these look so good after a sharp correction as requested by Quagmiree or Dave or even 10 years of slowly downawrds drifting selling prices?
So I quite we either need to accelerate wage growth or reduce house prices but since neither seems to be desired by either major political party (its a vote killer).
I guess a death by a thousand cuts it is!
Quagmire & AC
Yes lower prices and trasactions is not a forecast i would give either. I have said its going to be more like the death by a thousand cuts.
So if I stand corrected EA's do want lower prices by way of a sharp correction. Why then do so many Ea's give Dave so much stick??
They should be lobbying for for policies to facilitate a crash but i never see it on here?
Happy Chappy. I have no doubt that you can hold your own... but it is HOW you hold it that matters! ;o)
Here's the thing. You say "Hawkeye said prices are good and problem is lending, I disagree."
Well... yes, he did - and this year var nigh nine hundred thousand examples of 'good' prices are going to be presented as substantiating evidence. You have disagreed by stating that "Prices are still historically high compared to income" - which is another truism in itself - but it doesn't make him wrong. If prices were SO out of kilter with affordability across the board, then I would respectfully suggest that the nine hundred thousand would be halved and halved again.
And, on the subject of your latter comment above - how's about turning it on it's @$$, and saying "Income is historically low in comparison to prices". Still perfectly correct - and maybe highlights the true problem? Your earned pound-in-your-pocket (could therefore be as much as £1.65 of top-line earnings...) buys you less than ever today. Half a loaf of bread less; half a tin of beans less; two thirds of the distance and sixty percent less heat and light than only a couple of years ago, to be precise.
Therefore... we all need MORE MONEY to afford to live! More money = more affordable housing. Simples! ;o)
But of course, you said "A credit boom got the economy in mess and caused prices to accelerate."
Well... yes it did - and no it didn't. Availability of credit allowed people to pay more - but it was THEIR choice to do so. If a bank offered the average person a hundred thousand pound car loan, that person would very rarely go out and buy an Aston Martin (okay.. a SECOND-HAND Aston Martin...) just because they could - would they?
(House) prices were... always are... primarily fuelled by supply and demand - as is virtually any market. Lenders, in order to secure business (which is why they exist, don't forget...), made the funds more available. It effectively ALLOWED prices to accelarate - but did not CAUSE it.
Is the economy in a mess - absolutely. Can it be sorted - probably - but I doubt in my lifetime.
And as you so rightly state, a house price crash ISN'T the vehicle to drive it in any event...
HC - higher transactions AND higher prices is not happening short - mid term, no chance. Lower prices (I'm not saying they have to or should be lower) would of course mean more transactions, which equates to more money for the agent.
There are some really bad agents and the percentage model is a red herring. I have met agents who think getting 175k on a house THEY valued at 200k is good business for them.
Once you hit a certain threshold, big negotiations on price for the vendor are not really affecting the agent who is still earning a good fee with an easier sell...its only a few hundred quid difference.
Sorry, drifting here, I know this is only a small portion of agents but in these cases, the percentage model is really a smoke screen.
I think you will find most good agents would like prices to lower if it meant more lending and transactions. I appreciate transaction levels are lower than 2007, but we are seeing a new norm across many industries were volumes have slipped. I don't ever hear complaints from agents who are getting it right in today's climate. Its not by chance that lots of agents are still a success.
happy
Most EA's want higher transaction levels. Most EA's would have wanted the market to have bottomed out by now. Most EA's would prefer a sharp correction than death by a thousand cuts.
Can I also point out that if a vendor doesn’t like the fee structure (a percentage model) then there are plenty of alternatives.
Quagmire - Are you saying EA's dont want higher prices and higher transactions then???
With most EA's using a fee model based on achieved prices and no sale no fee. Not to mention working in the interst of a client that may want this, I would say it is the desire of many if not most EA's.
Peebee - I'll do just fine thanks :0).
Hawkeye said prices are good and problem is lending, I disagree. Prices are still historically high compared to income. A credit boom got the economy in mess and caused prices to accelerate. Now the banks have to tighten the purse strings and a deposit and squeky clean credit history are not the only factors a bank considers.
That does not mean i wish for a crash like Dave I realise the implications this would have on the whole economy.
Hawkeye - couldn't agree with you more on your list... but would add one other - which is probably the most obvious yet least understood. Every year, the Christmas decorations go up, same place for everything. Everyone is on an 'up'. Then, down they come. The place looks bare without them... blu-tack stains on the walls, and they're on a downer! It's at this point that many people start to dream of a home move - somewhere new to hang the decorations next year.
Yes - good old 'want'. The EMOTIONAL decision to move. Nothing to do with finances; with 'needs' - just a feeling.
And don't we all love it! Without people 'wanting' to move rather than 'needing' to move, the statistics - whatever they are from year to year - would be decimated.
Happy Chappy - I REALLY think that telling Hawkeye how to suck eggs is a bad idea. Recently I'm seeing a different side to him in some of his posts - and, trust me, you won't like him when he's angry! ;o)
@happy chappy
'So I'm sorry EA's I can't see prices rising next year.'
Why is it you think that agents want high house prices?
Hawkeye - Maybe the lenders thought it was overpriced, maybe the salary multilples were too high, the lenders bear the risk and have the right to refuse and application.
Banks are very risk averse so we are seeing the flip side of a credit boom.
Yes housing is unaffordable for many especially the young, we must redress this but cannot do this instantly.
As the poster pointed out - a crash will benefit the cash rich the most.
A long slow correction will benefit all much better in the long run, as will a gradual reduction in housing benefits to reduce rents.
Have you really thought out what will happen if the market crashes.? or does this suit your own VI as much as HPI and high transactions suits the property industries
Reducing prices in December makes them ready for after Xmas.
I have always opened between Xmas and the new year and out come those wanting a divorce (sell on big drum and sale on 2 smaller ones to same couple).
Family realise house is too small so move to larger house is on the cards.
Family set to reduce as kids want their own place and bank of mum and dad comes into play with sell big house and two smaller ones to the same family.
Get newly engaged couple want to set up home in a rented place.
Divorce couple rent one to one or the other.
The list is as you see it and they all come out that week between when they are not at work and as said here they have nothing better to do. Dont wait till the end of Jan as you will probably miss out on some good buyers/sellers!
Oh @Dave Get a life and go away you brainless s*@~ head. Prices are good and the big problem is lenders. Had a 40% LTV turned down with impeccable credit history.
=========================================
I agree with the last poster a crash would not be a good thing for the UK as a whole.
==========================================
but nor is propping up the biggest credit bubble in our history
don't forget its historically our kids who grow the economy with new thinking and new ideas
unfortunately we're marginalised them from society
0.5% rates are there for a reason and printing money has yet to be seen nasty consequences
I agree with the last poster a crash would not be a good thing for the UK as a whole. However prices are still unffordable to the majority and the fundamental drivers have not changed. So I'm sorry EA's I can't see prices rising next year.
House price stagnation to continue throughout 2013.
I'm a professional so Hmmm you can believe me! :0)
Anonymous Coward...
"...having been an agent for a little while now (about 20 years - memory is fading a bit after all this time!) I have only ever sold one property after 20th December..."
It would be interesting to hear from others as to whether this is the norm. Certainly not in MY experience - but remember that I was last treading the Branch boards quite some time ago.
"Unless a vendor is desperate to sell, advising them to take a big reduction because you want to do a sale is just wrong."
TOO RIGHT! I don't think I said anything to suggest that be the case, actually... what I DID say was that a timely price reduction to a competitive level from a previously ambitious asking price was never a bad move - and Crimbo is as good a time as any for the reasons I stated.
It should NEVER come into the equation that price reductions are made an issue because an Agent wants to do a sale. If the Agent cannot price a property correctly in the first place - or accepts an instruction at a price they know is overambitious, in my opinion they deservedly face a long hard struggle to get a sale - if indeed they are fortunate to sell it at all!
You can only reap what you sow...
"You even say you got a massive reduction when you did it a year ago - which makes my point for me."
Well... yes and no. Three things here - firstly, I was a way better negotiator than the Agent! (and trust me, I'm not really being big-headed there... my grandson is better again...); secondly, the property was up there with the kites in terms of realistic asking pricing - they knew it just as much as me... but I got it substantially cheaper than its' real worth simply by standing my son's corner; thirdly (although it really is an extension of the first and second points...), the Agent was obviously keen to do the deal before Christmas, as it IS a time when not many deals are done. Again, I never said that it was the BEST time - simply that it is just another time of the year when houses can be and are bought and sold.
AC - Peebee sums it up nicely. Buyers don't want to view houses over xmas so staff and viewings not an issue. The serious buyers who have spotted a good buy will be very happy to contact you on 2nd January.
Dave - be careful what you wish for. If prices sank by half or so, there would be a whole new breed of buyer in the market...those after second homes...I'd be one. Why not if they are so cheap?! Many would think the same.
Not to mention those looking to add to their already large portfolios. 40 per cent off? That's too good to let slip. If prices crashed tomorrow, you would have a boom before xmas.
Hi PeeBee
Points taken, but having been an agent for a little while now (about 20 years - memory is fading a bit after all this time!) I have only ever sold one property after 20th December and have run (shame I didn't own) 2 offices that regularly completed on 30-40 sales per month on average (I promise that I'm not bragging).
Unless a vendor is desperate to sell, advising them to take a big reduction because you want to do a sale is just wrong.
You even say you got a massive reduction when you did it a year ago - which makes my point for me.
Agents have a duty to get the best possible price for the owner, not a 20% discount for the buyers.
If you wait the 40 days I propose, a smaller price reduction is likely to catch not just more buyers in general but also fresh to the market "Let's buy a house now darling" buyers who made up their minds over Christmas.
==========================================
Belive professionals or twerps like Dave, let me think????
==========================================
RICS should be hoping prices tumble as the number of transactions will double
surveyora being paid buggar all these days
RICS smacks of vested interest in their over leveraged members
lets recap here...housing market was bailed out by hmg
"House prices in the UK will rise 2% next year and rents will go up 4%.
The predictions are from the RICS, which is also forecasting a rise in the number of transactions"
Belive professionals or twerps like Dave, let me think????
I will rightmove would take an axe to their fees.
New Years Resolution
Drop all rightmove extras and go back to the basic listings. Saving £3k a month !!
I thought Slipslide was an "ex-agent" and therefore understood the market! The TRUE picture of these stats is that a good agent will achieve near enough the asking price, whereas a poor agent will have overpriced in the first place (or given in to vendor pressure to "try it at a higher price) and therefore will end up selling for a price which is as 7 - 10% below their asking price. Ending up with a national average of 3.7% Its all rather worrying when such a dominant force in the property industry spews out these statistics which are then lapped up by both the press and consumers. Anyway, well done to rightmove for the only body anywhere in the UK to draw a similarity to the boom year of 2007. Top marks for that if nothing else.
Asking prices are irrelevant till they include price changes in existing properties rather than initial ones only.
With the record drop in prices being downplayed this month whats the bet they up play next months figures with all the greedy/disillusioned sellers re-marketing for spring bounce.
Anonymous Coward.
I have a much differing view which I would like to put forward. This view have served me well for over three decades - and when in Agency, it was well proven.
People look at, and make decisions to buy, homes pretty much every day of the year bar Christmas Day. In fact, as only one offered example of many I could put forward (but the latest is always the most relevant...) I negotiated the deal on the property my son bought only last Christmas Eve. I doubt very much that The Agent was particularly happy about this - but it got the deal done double quick and I scored a handsome discount even to what I was prepared to go to in their race to shut shop!
You say that the number of potential buyers is at an all-time low at Christmas. Yes - agreed - BUT those buyers are far much more motivated and focused, and therefore more likely to actually buy. The curtain-feelers don't come out on cold and miserable days! So you are offering what you have available to a better audience with far more chance of selling something to them.
Christmas is one of the very few times of the year that people have available to actually sit down to think about moving. Back in the day, it was the time that they could actually look in Agents' windows when they were closed, and be ready to pick up the phone to arange viewings when the Agents reopened. Of course, now most can do it from the comfort of their own homes thanks to t'interweb (and that horrible Rightmove animal that you all spend so much time complaining about and so little time appreciating how much of your business must actually come as a result of it...).
Most Agents report 'a pick-up in activity' from the minute their doors open in January - little wonder, when motivated prospective buyers are spending so much time looking at what is available when you are shut!
And, of course, this is where the 'lottery principle' comes into play. You have to be in it to win it, says the adverts - and the same is true about being on the market over the Christmas period. If buyers are looking - then it is ridiculous that vendors aren't putting their homes up in front of them to see!
If I had a quid for every vendor who said "Christmas is a bad time to be on the market", I'd be a rich man. If I had another quid from every Agent who spouts the same mantra, I'd be richer still! IF, on the other hand, I had the Fee for every time someone bought a home having first SEEN it over the Christmas period - I'd be rich beyond my wildest dreams!
Similarly, getting a previously ambitious price corrected to a more attractive and competitive level is never a bad move. Christmas is every bit as good a time - maybe even better for the reasons above - to push it in front of the buying public.
SO... to sum all the above billshut up in two sentences...
If you are NOT on the market at Christmas (or on the market at the wrong price...) you MAY miss vital selling opportunities.
If you ARE on the market...at the right price... then you are in a position to get the worm before the other birds even think about trying.
Someone tell me the down side to that, please...
this is just the tip of the iceberg
I expect prices to fall 30-50% or more for flats
as prices plinge ftbs will buy rather than rent leaving huge voids triggering the collapse of btl sector
its very possible that prices could be 40% less in 20 years time
with wages falling,we are in the grip of deflation,just like japan..an expanding overseas workforce are able and willing to do the same work for less money(alot less)
all that with 0.5% base rate...scary stuff
AoS - perhaps right, but are your offices fully staffed with people waiting to book those viewings and are the vendors ready with a pristine house for the viewings?
The main reason that the holiday period is so strong for viewing traffic on websites in general is because people have nothing better to do, rather than being pro-active buyers waiting to pounce.
I stand by my previous comments
AC - I see your argument and on one hand you could agree. On the other, every Christmas, Rightmove do their tv advertising push and other portals as well this year. As a result, they report massive traffic to their site....is it really a bad thing to have a reduced(correctly priced) existing property on display with the mass number of visitors browsing? Serious buyers won't need to wait 3 weeks into jan to act on something that is presented well at a good price.
I have had my rate increase through.
Up from £400 pcm (sales & lettings) to £540pcm.
I have given them 3 months notice.
I have now received tons of condescending emails and examples of how stupid I would be for leaving them. They have not even tried to address one of the issues I have with them.
Now, will my competitors follow me?
...and as we all know Rightmove only register the intiial asking price. Any later reductions are not counted in their index. Pointless really but at least its moving in the right direction.
Perhaps some agent can answer why, in my area, virtually identical houses (I've viewed both) on the same road are being marketed at 320k and 215k. Okay so the 215k needs about 20k work but either vendors are delusional (in which case why would you take them on - I never understand that!?!?!?!?) or the agents are completely clueless.
Cant wait to see what the BBC coverage on this is: "Highest rate of negative growth in years", anyone?
Barn door after horse has bolted?
What exactly is the point of getting a price reduction before Christmas exactly?
When the number of buyers ACTIVELY looking is at an all time low, a price reduction is a waste of time.
A good agent now will be talking to their clients about relaunching in the third week of January with that price reduction - because that is when it will have real impact.
Mental vendors, mental agents.
Seems to be a case of "Do, before you think"
Timber!