Sellers are slashing their asking prices harder and more often in a bid to shift their homes.
New research from property portal Zoopla reveals that both the number of reduced properties on the market and the average amount by which prices have been reduced have climbed over the past three months.
Nearly four in ten (37.4%) of all properties listed for sale today have had at least one price reduction since coming to the market – up from 36.4% in November.
The average discount now stands at £18,475 or 6.9% off the original asking price – up from £15,879 or 6.1% in November.
In London, 31.8% of properties on the market have had their prices cut, by 6.6%. This equates to an average reduction of £45,664.
Zoopla offers a feature on its website allowing users to sort search results by those that have been most reduced in price.
These show that the greatest price cuts are at the top end of the market, for properties listed for sale over £1m, where the average discount has climbed to 10% off the original asking price, up from 8% in November.
Birmingham tops the list of areas with the highest proportion of properties that have been reduced in price, with almost half (48.4%) of all properties on the market for sale today having been discounted at least once from the original asking price.
Swindon (46.8%), Norwich (46.6%), Coventry (46.4%) and Bournemouth (44.1%) are other areas which currently have the highest proportion of price reduced properties in the market.
In terms of areas with the highest average discount to the original asking price, Bolton and Newcastle top the list with an average discount of 8%, followed closely by Rotherham, Liverpool and Maidstone (all at 7.9%).
At the other end of the scale, Chorley (24.1%) leads the places with the lowest proportion of price-reduced homes and Chelmsford (5.3%) comes out on top as the place with the lowest average discount to the original asking price in Britain.
%20A%20property%20tale%20for%20our%20times.png)
Comments
George Daws - I spotted that the other day too and used it as reference in discussion with a HPC'er who suddenly hit a brick wall when I mentioned it. It makes satisfying viewing.
Anna - Couldn't agree more, this always seems to be forgotten/ignored.
For all you weirdoes with an illogical ill-informed opinions of Estate Agents, please remember transaction volumes have been roughly at the same levels since 2007 and we are still here!
And we are not really too bothered about price movements, just as long as we do our job, “ Get the best price for the vendor” whatever that happens to be.
You just carry on slinging cash down the rent drain.
Posted yesterday on Timothylumsden.com
If you want house prices to fall then you shouldn’t rent or buy.
"The problem I see is that prices for first time buyers rose out of control because of competition for the houses they could afford; most of this competition came from the buy to let investors that are blamed in part for house price inflation.
If you now rent the house you would like to buy all you are doing is helping to keep prices high. The only way to take buy to let out of the housing equations is if no one rents from them.
House prices would crash quickly If every potential first time buyer refused to rent or buy."
LSHBSSAMAFO (Laughing so hard both sides split and my arse fell off)
Actually Peebee, HPC have a chart showing prices from 1975; interestingly prices are currently below their trendline.
Brit1234: "If EAs got sellers to reduce asking prices to reduce then the 1000s of us FTBs with deposits but priced out could generate you EAs much needed commission. Without reductions in these hard economic times selling volumes will continue to fall making many EAs redundant and agencies close." You just don't get it... do you? VERY FEW of you MSE/HPC Brigade do - so you're in great company... How do you suggest EA's "get" their vendors to reduce? Horses heads under the blankets? Dog-mess (...or worse...) through the letterboxes? Bricks through windows? Come on - get real! The Agent has NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER in this situation! The vendor holds all the straws. There is NO REASON why a seller should reduce their price of ANYTHING just so that someone who does not have the wherewithal to buy can take it home off the shelf. You go into ASDA with a fiver and see how much of a trolleyload of booze you can take to the car - my guess is that you will leave the major chunk of it behind regardless of how much you protest that you can't afford it but want it!
The problem here is affordability. Grads are taking jobs paying peanuts because that is all there is to take. Wages are probably at all-time lows in relation to pretty much ANYTHING you need to buy with maybe the exception of electronic goods. But if you think of it, the electronic goods are simply the shiny wrapper for what is the REAL money-spinner - the Apps; the subscriptions and the widgets that MUST go with the package.
My salary has not increased in 10 years. I am now earning far less in real terms than I was at the end of the last century. If I was the beneficiary of a yearly COL increase I would be positively quids in - but I'm not. Consequently I could not afford to buy a property today at the same value that I could have bought in 1999 - as my disposable income is less!
IF wages rose by 5% per annum, then every ten years there would be an increase of 62.9%. I am sure that there are some statisticians out there who could supply the information from say 1970 onwards, in yearly increments, the ten-year percentage uplift of property. My guess is that less than a third of the periods would show a higher increase of 62.9%.
I've said it before; I'll say it again. Economics and homeselling/buying are governed by two different Laws. You shouldn't - and CANNOT - confuse them.
Brit1234 Do you want to live in London or do you need to live in London?
A 25% deposit for a home in London will buy outright the same home outside London. You might be the world's greatest economist but being led by want rather than need makes you no different from a whole generation who have satisfied their wants rather than saving for their needs.
When Labour bought your votes with short term interest free credit the small print always said there would be compound interest to pay. Time has come to cough up!
If prices dropped as much as you dreamers unrealistically hope, what do you think would happen?
Everyone form an orderly queue and let the FTBs grab an absolute bargain? Yeah right. FTB's wouldn't get a look in.
Brit1234 - London pricing has always been notoriously expensive. YOU made the decision to work in London and this does not entitle you to a property there. If you can't afford a property in the City, but want to buy, it seems like a foolish decision on the surface. Plenty of sensible people buy a nice house on the outskirts with good connections, rather than complain believing they are owed something.
A house is a privilege, not a right.
"The whole house price bubble is unsustainable and prices will crash in time"
Why?
I'm a nutter from mse forums, like my HPC nutter brothers I also believe that asking prices are far too high and need to fall.
I have a well paid job and a 25% deposit yet can't afford to buy in London. I have a university background in Risk and have been studying Austrian school economics. The whole house price bubble is unsustainable and prices will crash in time.
I do not want do buy to make a profit just to get a secure roof over my head. If EAs got sellers to reduce asking prices to reduce then the 1000s of us FTBs with deposits but priced out could generate you EAs much needed commission. Without reductions in these hard economic times selling volumes will continue to fall making many EAs redundant and agencies close.
By pricing right you will stimulate demand and protect your livelihoods so it is in your interest as well as ours.
Regards Brit1234
Hi JonnyP. I am afraid that technically I don’t sit on the other side of the fence (I am, according to at least one person on here, ‘deluded’ – so I might even have to join the HPC brigade…) – but please humour me long enough to read what I have to say.
The answer to your question lies with your answer to these questions. 1. Why do you want to buy a house. 2. Are you planning to own it for a period of time, or do you see yourself selling in, say, less than 3-5 years? 3. Is your plan to buy THE house; or buy A house?
If the answer to question number (1) is that you want to buy a house to make money, then today I don’t believe there is a single person out there that can say you would be doing a wise thing, unless the answer to (2) is a resounding “yes”. At this point, the probability (based off historical evidence…) is that any impending price corrections should have long since stopped and at least found themselves back to where we are today. However, your comment “…it is rather that I do not want to buy something now that I could pick up more cheaply in a few years time.” That makes me feel that you view this as a business transaction than an emotional or needs-based purchase. So I would say that a good business decision would be to keep your money in your pocket and watch the market to see what happens. Worst case scenario – the property will rocket and you will have missed an opportunity. Best case scenario (…for you) – property values decline; your ‘ideal home’ comes on the market at a song – and you sing all the way to the bank!
If you are a TRUE first-time buyer, with the simple desire to become a homeowner and nothing else, then the answer to number (3) MUST be “THE house”. Otherwise don’t do it. If you buy unwisely then you will hate the property (in fairness there is no cast-iron guarantee that you will endear to it regardless) and want to offload it, which, in this market, will almost certainly cost you money and sour your experience.
Don’t rely on fate bringing the price down for you. If you see a property you like, the probability is that someone else will like it also. The cheaper it gets, the more likelihood of it being in greater demand and therefore the less likelihood of you getting it. No clever economics; no statistics – just laws of supply and demand, and human nature.
Those who get ‘clever’ with the housing market tend to forget what drives it.
I am also a nutter from over at HPC. Quite a long standing nutter there actually. My circumstances are a bit odd in that although I am a potential FTB (I am even the 'average' age of 37!!), I will be a cash buyer when I do buy. In the time I have been hanging out on HPC I have saved enough to buy a modest house. My interest centers around whether I should buy one soonish or wait a bit.
I recognise the fact that a lot of the posters on HPC are indeed nutters, although if you sift through the posts carefully you occasionally find some little gems of knowledge.
However, I am also keen to hear views from 'the other side of the fence'.
What I am curious about is the concept that people will not sell if they cannot get the price they desire. The feeling seems to be that they will just hang in there until the market improves.
Yet, we also hear in the media that there are a lot of people struggling with debt right now. Two million people apparently use their credit cards to pay their mortgage. We are about to see swathes of public sector job losses. Most of the ‘newly created’ jobs we hear about are low paying service sector jobs. And to date we have seen very little appetite from the major banks to start a wave of repossessions.
My view is that at some point we will see all of these factors come together in a wave of FORCED repossessions. Probably about when interest rates start to rise again. As I see it, many vendors will not have the luxury of deciding not to sell – the decision will be taken for them.
This probably makes me sound a bit callous. However, my interest is not necessarily predicated on screwing unfortunate people out of their house for a low price – it is rather that I do not want to buy something now that I could pick up more cheaply in a few years time. I think that many of the HPC posters think along similar lines.
I am interested to hear your views from the coalface though – do you think the major banks are building up large quantities of ‘zombie’ repossessions – i.e houses that should really be reposessed but that are not currently being put on the market as the banks fear that it would depress the market further?
Rick Deckard - i used to work for sequence thats excactly how they did it, bullying clients into listing, tie em in for 2o weeks, charge a £165 listing fee, and mark the hip up by £150 and make £100 with the battery farm solicitor and then try to con the vendor with cashback!! mindboggiling!!! it was a horrible toxic envioroment i am so glad to be clear of the corporate world.
Not wanting to add to the corporate "beating" going on but in all honesty how any one being a representative of Countrywide can state everything was rosy when the recession bit is simply re-enforcing the general publics (and no doubt people in the industry) opinion that lots of estate agents simply are clueless when it comes to it , and simply mirror the sentiment at the time.
Talk the market up- get them on - get a nice long sole agency agreement to stitch the vendor up - (sorry ring fence) and then slowly erode the vendors expectations downwards to accept a lower offer.
That’s is how it works isn’t it?
However there was a better way before that - the ave % was higher and agents shared commission, joint sole agency or sub instructions enabled vendors to reach a wide market place with a little competition and to be honest received better advice back then.
One day someone WILL write a book and expose every dirty little psychological trick that is accepted as "normal" working practice by most in the industry.
How it is possible to have multiple outlets of the same company in nearly every town in the UK is beyond me simply playing "pass the parcel" from one Countrywide subsidiary to another is farcical - almost a perpetual sole agency agreement isn’t it?
Just for the record in late 2008 Standard and Poors downgraded Countrywides credit status showing the group posting operating losses of £29m - trust me it that if Countrywide had not structured a revolving credit deal they would not exist as they do today.
You will only get higher transaction levels once prices have been adjusted and it is the market that will truly determine the price - based on the external variables - its really not to hard to work them out is it?
As for "professional" landlords buying up lots of property -This is jus talking the market up again - simpy another peak and trough?
I would hardly call these "professionals" buying on the high street - even auctions are failing to sell really cheap stock for professionals that are liquid in the market.
Any agent that is operating ethically and with integrity will be the real winners out there - its such a shame that Mary Portals didn’t choose a Countrywide subsidiary to look at how valuations and offers are dealt with - Maybe its time for an undercover reporter to do a full expose ala Panorama - any takers?
Ian
Funnily enough I didn't mention corporates - that was you!
It doesn't so much depend on who is behind the desk as much as who is the owner/manager. I know corporate staff who live under constant fear of not achieving some pretty ridiculous targets. If they are given unrealistic targets they will cheat and talk up the price.
Of course there are independents who are just as short sighted ad then there are vendors who are pleased to buy their next house for 10% less but cannot get their head round the fact that they are not losing money (money they never had and never existed) and still want height of the market prices because that's what Mrs Jones sold for in 2008.
Peebee - ashamed to say although I'm a proud Northerner I've since slipped South West a bit for the sunshine!
Its a variaion of an idea posted here before Christmas.
I 'm offering 120% mortgages at 23% fixed for he term. That seems high at the moment but once inflation kicks in at 37%, 23% APR will be a bargain.
Sign up now at HPCmortmart.com "mortgages for the thick and gullible"
"buy your unsold stock dot com"
What a great idea - if I had the money I would buy all of my stock at 30% of their current asking prices and immediately sell them on at a 300% profit.
Can you lend me £30,000,000? oh and while youre at it have a word with my vendors and get them to take a reduction of 70% just for me
No, a better idea, get those guys from the buyers register jobby from last month to do it for you, then they will earn 15% of the reduction as a commission too
what a win win for everyone :-)
RR, most estate agents all ready market online and do a far better job than you, whats your point?
Peebee! did you not recognise the avatar, either that is the very bonkers property match (buy your unsold stock you snivelling, over-valuing, bunch of crooks) bloke or it is someone using the same jpeg.
Woof Woof Woof!
RR: Okay - I concede that we have something in common. We are both completely barking!
I AM barking because I seem to be the ONLY person in the entire country who is of the belief that an Estate Agents' job is to secure the best buyer for his paying client at the best price.
YOU ARE barking because you are of the belief that MILLIONS of homeowners should accept that their home; their castle; their pension - whatever you care to call it - be immediately and substantially devalued for the good of all mankind.
Mate - I prefer my particular madness to yours anyday!
"Unfortunately, you just seem to want higher prices? Perhaps thats simply because you are a property investor?" Okay - here I go again. I have ONE property. A modest three-bed semi, in a reasonable location. It is probably 'worth' bang on the LRs UK average property value. But I don't care. I am not moving, so it is a theoretical value only to me. If I were to enter the market now, I could not "afford" my own property. That is the perverse world we live in (on) - but we live on it. It does not revolve around one individual; or one group of individuals. Your proposals simply could and would never gain acceptance from a large enough proportion of the homeowning population - OR the lenders who hold the deeds to all of these properties - to EVER see the light of day. I said before 'theoretical value'. it is the theoretical value of MY property, YOUR property and everyone else's property that form a massive part of the economy. So you will wipe out what - 15% of the value... 20% maybe... of our nation at the cock of your hat.
Ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes.
Lets not stop at property prices. My son wants a Range Rover, but can only afford the Hyundai Tucson he drives. Do 'us a favour - have a go for him, please. If ANYONE can get the manufacturers to listen, it's you. Oh - and the petrol people, of course - no way could he fill that Mother up twice a week at six quid odd a gallon...
I DO NOT WANT HIGH PRICES! But as they are there, at their current levels, it is my responsibility to attempt to maintain them at that level. Low prices would suit me fine. my two sons would buy their own properties; I would pick up a property or two - so why shouldn't I want that? But this is not about me. It is about EVERY homeowner. THEY matter; THEY call the shots. Go door-to-door and tell them all your plans for their property value. See what responses you get and report back to us. If 85% of homeowners countrywide agree, then I'll eat my words and be your No #1 backer, I promise.
Put me down as a 'Don't Know'...
I propose making agents buy their unsold stock at 30% of what they valued it at 3 months ago.
Wardy. You may try and mock house sales going direct online now but, wait let's and see, shall we …
PeeBee. Hi, Lets try and discuss.
Firstly, lets agree on one thing, please? You're not an agent (anymore), I'm not an agent anymore either. OK?
What you don't get, is that I am proposing a way for price stability to be achieved. It not about enabling people to make more and more money on house sales, its ultimately about bringing in a new era of price stability, to enhance throughput in the whole of the market.
You may note that in this proposed scenario, agents stand to gain the most (because of the increased turnover of sales).
House owners will also gain by being able to move more economically and with less stress and hassle.
A market works well when ALL the prerequisites for it to continue working well are present.
It stops functioning perfectly when one or more of these essential prerequisites cease to endure.
The main prerequisites for the UK Housing Market to work well are:
Continual demand from buyers, coupled with sufficient wealth or access to finance.
Adequate knowledge about what price levels should be. No guesswork here I'm afraid.
Adequate choice of houses available to purchase.
Stability of employment, National economic stability etc.
Unfortunately, you just seem to want higher prices? Perhaps thats simply because you are a property investor? If so, you are only able to see one side of the situation - not the whole picture.
I appologise Johnny, we had another visitor from HPC not so long ago who posted under the same name.
The article supports my argument that the properties for sale are not those at the starter end of the market or even the middle market, with an average price in the article of £267,000 outside London and £691,000 in. The article is reinforcing the fact that the jump to the next level of property is the problem. Prices do not need to drop at the bottom of the market.
I think that a lot of the falls in prices will be over extended aspirational purchases, the greediest of vendors whose knowledge of the subject of property is far greater than any agent I have ever met.
WARDY - As I said it's not the company that sells it's the staff.....Yes I agree Countrywide make huge profits from FS but nearly all our subsidary offices traded at a profit in EA. Just goes to show that people buy people no matter who you work for.
Fair enough Peebee, I assumed you were still an EA; no matter.
It appears that we are of differing view-points although suffice it to say we won't know who's right until all this plays-out as i'd argue we're still in the eye of the storm.
As you appear to be; a true free market adherent would argue - as you have - that the price and transaction levels are dictated by the market and no-one else.
That would be fine if we had a fully functioning property market subject to the whims of the free market. But we don't due to so many artificial props (SMI, LHA, reluctance of banks to repossess, Localism Bill) that no-one actually knows where the market should be.
I guess this could be discussed to death though it will be interesting to revisit this in a year's time...
@George Daws FNAEA
Go and read this article. Sellers are cutting prices.
You should send back your crystal ball, it has my circumstances waaaay off the mark and is making you sound childish.
Johnny, go and read the other news story that confirms what I said months ago, Professional landlords are snuffling up starter homes to let out to folk who are waiting for prices to drop. There might be room for prices to drop at the top end but simply no need for a single penny fall at the bottom. You are not going to talk prices down far enough to compensate for your lack of saving, or poor affordability rating.
Johnny,:
You are possibly correct, but only in half the story.
I have been In the business since 1970 and have lived and survived the history as you say. Three major 'collapses' in prices etc. during that time.
Please read my post carefully. It is my opinion, which does depend on several factors, but could be as right as anyones.
Most successful people always have th glass half full!
Regards
@Ray Evans
You must be one of the deluded I mentioned earlier. The price falls have only just started. Transaction levels plummet first, quickly followed by prices. You should look at some history.
In the 1990s house price crash EA's eventually realised that they had to give vendors realistic valuations and set asking prices accordingly. They also helped vendors negotiate a low price on the place they wanted to buy so they could accept low offers on the place they were selling. EA's had to help each other with this (collaboration rather than competition paid dividends). Those who didn't adapt like this got lots of properties on their books via high valuations, but no sales & went bust.
Things are about to get very interesting.
House prices can only fall so far and we are approaching that level.
Whatever anyone says vendors will not sell at a greatly reduced price if they have a mortgage that cannot be discharged (probably cannot afford to if they purchased during the last 5/10 years on a 25 year mortgage).
Builders will not build unless they can sell at a profit.
Many, not all, first time buyers could afford the actual mortgage repayments if offered with a ten percent deposit, at a ‘reasonable’ interest rate and without extortionate ‘arrangement fees’
rantnrave: "Think I understood your idea, but to be honest I am looking to buy a house for use as a home, not an investment or something to speculate with." I would suggest that with this as your agenda you represent roughly 30-50% of the HPC brigade. The others - they will jump on the bandwagon as soon as blink. They will buy low, make some dosh and cash in.
Some will not stop at one; they will become the hobby investors (IF they are not so already and just playing clever...) they say they despise; they will buy a second/third place as a pension and rent it out to those who STILL cannot afford, (...or have the ability...) to buy - for there will ALWAYS be a proportion who sit in this position.
Human nature is based upon greed - that is why there are wars. Nothing to do with religion, colour,creed - someone looks over the fence, sees greenery - and decides to invade to claim it as theirs.
I would GLADLY see prices drop by 20...30 percent even, in order that my sons and their families could set out to own their own properties - but like I continue to say, it is not one person's wants that matter here. My asset-based 'loss' of forty or fifty thou would not even affect me - what is mine will be theirs in years to come when I won't be here to care anyway.
IF property is selling at a level, then that is the level. WANTING it lower does not correlate to MAKING it lower - or it HAVING TO BE.
I am sure that you appreciate this as a reasonable person.
You don't have to agree with it, of course...
Ian: I have also worked for Country Wide and i happen to know that in many of the offices, EA was running at a loss and it was FS keeping them going and that was in a good market.
Property Match: You still here? No world pay payments to process today? Hows the 'make agents under value' campaign going for you?
Regular visitors to this site will remember the bonkers rise in asking prices reported in the Autumn, just as the market was dropping off in light of the coalitions spending cuts
this story is surely a correction to that stupid state of affairs
agents requiring stock over value - new lisitings in my area at the moment are coming on with my donkey competitors at prices higher than 2007 - go figure????
Some sellers are at best naive, guided by stupid EA's !!!!
Sibleys...:
"...we want lower prices; you want higher transactions..." Not me, pal - you forget I am not an Estate Agent. Was - not any more. I just see a wider picture. Yes, you are right that Agents require a high turnover - simply because the fee levels they charge dictate this. IF Agents were to charge a fee, commensurate to the levels of transactions, then there would be no requirement for the Numbers Game mentality; no need for the overvaluing that is prevalent; NO NEED for Mr Realising Reality / PropertyMatch / whoever on the day... to revolutionise the Industry and the housebuying process which has managed itself for generations before him and will for generations after.
Talking of whom...
You say "You still don't get it." Sunshine - I reckon I've 'sold' twenty houses for every one of yours. I've bought and sold in rain; shine; sh!t flying from all angles- you name it. Boom; bust; all the draggy bits in the middle - houses sell. Buyers buy. IF a house is priced out of the market, it either doesn't sell; it reduces to meet the market; or it sits and stagnates until the market meets it. NOT EVERY HOUSE needs to sell overnight; in three months - if the vendor is happy to wait then let them do it. IF a vendor does not understand that they are buying and selling in the same market, and that by waiting to achieve what is currently an inachievable figure then they will more than likely have to pay more than current prices for their next purchase - then that is their perogative. In these instances the Agent simply needs to charge a proportionate Fee for additional marketing costs due to the protracted timescale involved. A simple addition to the current Agency Agreement - no threats of forced purchase such as you would implement in your increasingly strange utopian society...
YOU cannot dictate the market, or shape its' future, Mr RR. NO SINGLE PERSON can. Get off your horse - it died and can carry you no further, despite your repeated flogging.
Oh - now that you are back are you going to revisit any of our old sparrings? There is PLENTY that we need to get to the bottom of - and you keep running away 'cos I'm "threatening" you... ;0)
ANNA - Do you think ALL corporates over value? It's funny as I work for Countrywide and traded at a profit throughout the Recession so I would say that my stock sells....thus cannot be overpriced...! I have worked for both Independant and Corporate and believe me there is little difference between them other than the people behind the desks...
@PeeBee - I never went away. My EAT login password has stopped working though. I am paranoid and they are out to get me...
Think I understood your idea, but to be honest I am looking to buy a house for use as a home, not an investment or something to speculate with. When I have the security of having paid off that home, then I might take more risks with my money with stocks etc. I will however most definitely not invest in anything that has a detrimental effect to others who cannot afford it, whether it be bidding up world food prices or making younger folk have to take on more debt to pay for a home.
No, not win-win. You still don't get it. That's the problem.
Absolutely Peebee, despite 'only' 40-50k transactions per month; it still shows that people are still buying and selling. But, that isn't in dispute is it?
In fairness, it could be argued that the wants of the majority of HPC posters isn't at all mutually exclusive from those of a typical EA (ie we want lower prices; you want higher transactions).
Suffice it to say, it would be counter-productive to come onto an EA website and set-out to antagonise (conversely, we also have a number of EAs over on the 'dark-side' so quid pro quo)...
Hello rantnrave - welcome back! As one of the HPCers gifted with both a modicum of sobriety AND a pleasant demeanour when putting forward your points you really should be their mouthpiece on here!
There is little doubt that SOME prices need to fall. There is no question that MANY properties will not sell for what they are asking. There is a CERTAINTY that this issue is not going to come to an end tomorrow, the day after, or even mext week or next month. HOWEVER... the age-old 'rules' still apply. The BEST properties in the BEST locations, priced sensibly, WILL SELL. Those that are marketed speculatively; those where the Agents have simply beaten the competition to get the instruction; those that aim for the stars strapped to a cheap chinese firework will mainly fizzle out and fail - or meet the expectations of the market.
Where the majority of the HPC Brigade mainly fall flat is thinking that THEY and they alone ARE the market. That their website will bring about the revolution. Yes, it has a following - but for every single HPCer there are several who simply buy and sell and think (or don't...) about the consequences later. The figures prove that. 50k a month ain't great - but it ain't Armageddon either!
I have a suggestion. As all HPCers want to own properties but aren't willing to pay 'market value', how about this. You 'buy' a property at a fixed price of, say, £90k (subject to a yearly RPI/COL increase). The present owner holds a charge on the property for EVERY PENNY OVER the original purchase price when the property is then resold. They won't mind - they will be doing exactly the same on the one they are buying... HPC buyer can then buy and not worry about the awful prospect of making a future profit - or of fuelling the next boom:bust cycle that they detest so much.
Win:win?
Clearly a lot of current asking prices are deluded. The average property marketed at a 2007 + 10% price just isn't going to get any viewings let alone sell. PeeBee is right, why waste money marketing something with no chance of a sale? Manage the vendors expectations, cut prices and you'll be rolling in comission.
A couple of other pieces of advice:
1. Shoe shop staff. If I ask for a size 10, and all you have left are a size 8 or 12, then for future reference, I would rather not "give them a try". Call it intuition or whatever, I just don't think they'd fit.
2. Ryan Air passengers. These days they let EVERYBODY off the planes, thus eliminating the need to all clamber to the front the second the aircraft lands.
I've had this very gripe for some while, and no-one on these blogs has been able to assuage my concerns about it to date.
What gets me is there is no consensus amongst estate agents about this fundamentally important topic, as can already be seen in these comments, and there needs to be. The NAEA are sitting on the fence on this too - I've asked them about it.
The price of a house is decided by the buyers out there, not by the vendor - or indeed by the vendor persuading the agent taking on the house.
If you guys and dolls don't get the prices about right, at the beginning, but just want to gain the instructions and do whatever the vendor wants, what hope is there for you?
Remember Mary Portas? She advised you that your aim should be to become known for "hard work, real knowledge, expertise, and honesty". Was she right? I think so.
Change needs to happen on this front too.
This can only be an encouraging sign for all parties (well, perhaps not for vendors); lower prices = more transactions.
In an ideal world it would be so that EAs didn't have to overvalue instructions in order to win the instructions. I'm not saying all do it but all it does is cement vendors' avarice.
Maybe, just maybe, perhaps all those binge-drinking losers at HPC have a point?
Cheers, Anna. Nice to see that we north-easteners are putting up a united front on this site! ;0)
Percentages are all well and good if the total number of properties is known.
Reducing the price of 1 property would provide a figure of 100% if there is only one property considered. Without the sample size the figures quoted mean nothing.
We just don't take them on at inflated prices. There's a choice these days, you can be 'on the market' or you can be 'on the market and sold'.
We have had a few houses bounce back to us lately who were on at vastly inflated prices with other agents. We kept in touch with the vendors and have happily agreed sales on them now.
There is always the quirky property that's worth a try for a fortnight at a slightly higher guide price sometimes resulting in a pleasant surprise.
Peebee is right, just be honest at the outset. Nothing gets you instruction faster than a host of sale agreed boards.
zippy: What an amazing business model you run! You take on properties that you know to be overpriced; you expend monies in order to market them; build up the hopes and aspirations of the vendor... then you pick up your ball and walk away with it when you feel like it!
Run that past the Dragons - and let me know when it is aired. That one is a definite 'keeper' on the sky+...
Get the instruction at any price, sign up to long sole agency, reduce price later, chance of the poor victim selling gone. and thats just countrywide, but too many "proper" agents copy them. No wonder we get mocked like Simon Silly Gerrard!
true facts zoopla, i would say genuine sellers do, we as a firm dis instruct vendors who will not reduce! believe us its the way forward, the local corporate then sucks up the rubbish from the bottom of the tank and gets stuck up the bottom with it.