The number of £1m-plus properties on Primelocation that have had their asking prices cut has fallen to the lowest level for three years.
The proportion is now 18%, compared with 27% a year ago.
Rickmansworth in Buckinghamshire tops the list of places where the highest proportion of £1m homes are currently being offered at less than the original asking price. Almost half (48%) have had price cuts.
By contrast, only 4% of prime properties on the market in Guernsey have been reduced in price.
The smallest price reductions on £1m-plus properties on offer in the market are to be found in the Surrey towns of Walton-on-Thames (4.3%) and Guildford (4.2%). The largest price cuts are in Bath and Edinburgh.
Lawrence Hall of Primelocation said: “The prime property market is a law unto itself and one which has largely defied gravity in recent years, even during the recession. However, even the wealthiest areas have seen deep discounts in the past few years.
“But the drop over the past 12 months in the number of prime properties with reduced asking prices has been a significant one, indicating that at the top end of the market sellers are generally feeling a lot more bullish now than they were this time last year.”
.jpg)
%20A%20property%20tale%20for%20our%20times.png)
Comments
Peebee, the people who pump out tripe and expect us to swallow it like the media do never engage with the industry they are commenting on. As a result they confidently dish out another dollop and have gotten themselves in a position to earn a salary from it. I would dearly love to have this type of discussion with Lawrence Hall, Miles Shipside, Peter Bolton King, Chris Hamer, Mark Prisk, Ian Potter et all but not a single one of them has the fortitude to communicate with the grass roots of the industry where the truth and experience is to be found. To risk exposing the weakness of their position or thinking is simply inconceivable, which is a pity.
I am down South but well clear of Burberry and recycled water.
Sir (I presume...)
I can well understand your wish - nay, need - to be exonerated from such a misdescription and as such I beg your forgiveness for making such a woeful error of judgement.
I assure you that I wasn't (intentionally) linking 'you' to 'him' in order to discredit your opinion - I genuinely saw (sorry...) some similarity between your posting style and that of his and made what is clearly a wrong presumption.
Sorry again.
I also agree wholeheartedly that the constant MDT (you just knew I would squeeze it in somewhere...) spewed out from the Messrs Shipside, Hall et al are exactly that. Unfortunately, they are read by the masses and because of the weight behind them they become 'fact' to many. I get just as wazzed off by them just as you obviously do - and have made many a comment on them to that effect.
I NOW see where you were coming from - and in THAT respect I agree with you - although my initial interpretation of what you were saying is vastly different from what you have now explained to be your motivation.
Maybe I was wrong - maybe I jumped onto a pedestal based upon duff interpretation. I keep re-reading it to see where I could have gorn orf track so wildly - but it's still eluding me I'm afraid. But let's not dwell any longer.
I gather from your post (or rather I assume - hopefully correctly this time...) that you are not a suvverner. Without being too specific are you prepared to let on where your neck of the woods lies - as you may already know I'm oop in he frozen north of England so stories about million quid gaffs always make me laugh anyway seeing as every taxi driver in London obviously owns one and only Northern Royalty have the mansionettes that would figure at the very footnote of these stories!
Believe it or not, I've enjoyed our little exchange immensely. Don't let on to you-know-who - but you almost had me breaking out in a sweat which so far he has failed spectacularly to accomplish (maybe that should have convinced me otherwise as to who you weren't...). Who knows - from here on in we may even agree on some matters.
I'll not even charge you for the use of my annoying cliches! ;o)
All I ever really wanted to do was clear my moniker from the accusation of being Peter Hendry. To drag my internet aliases to such depths was inexcusable. I understand how raising the very suspicion of a covert Realising Reality posting is a useful and effective way of discrediting any comment; linking any poster to that mad, parallel, property universe is a certain means to reinforce one’s own perspective as correct.
Before this thread slips out of the top 30 and into the archive, my real motivation for challenging Lawrence Hall’s non story is to expose the utter rubbish he and the other portals pump out as news. Uncertain and unqualified crud focused on London and the South East.
The pseudo authority afforded to ‘not real property people’ because of their employment is staggering. The BBC and media regurgitate their MDT and suddenly shit becomes fact, making the job of property professionals not in London and the South East much harder than it needs to be.
Across the industry of supplying services to Estate Agents and Property management there is a woeful lack of experience and understanding of our industry. The result is outrageously poor media and disgracefully inaccurate, misinterpreted statistics which asexually reproduce to reinforce themselves. With so many of those who should be controlling and balancing the media more interested in getting on the telly, the industry they should represent is suffering. Talking of which it is the 12th of the month and I am guessing the latest non story from Great Charles street is on its way to Ros and Sheila.
I really ought to thank you for the opportunity to post and post again, without your assistance mine would have been a single rant on another billshut story.
"Without quantifying and qualifying the type of property and its location the story becomes meaningless, without the timescales and history of reductions the story is meaningless..."
YAHAAAY - we agree on something at last! A momentous breakthrough if I ever saw one!
"Most agents do not understand how much profit is gained or lost by the decisions made on a new to market instruction."
My gosh - we're on a roll here! I'm starting to wish we were facebook buddies...
" Knowing how much to add to a valuation to achieve best price for a vendor balanced with the commercial obligations of the business is the narrowest of tightropes, it is one of the things many agents do not understand and it is the reason I can pick and choose which properties I take on immediately, which I choose to delay and which I avoid altogether."
Are you ME by any chance? I have been known to talk to myself occasionally - even to disagree with myself from time to time - so it is possible I guess...
I even make the occasional typo! :o)
"Clearly Peebee our experience of how to extract profit from property sales is different."
Not so sure about why that one came to the surface, mind you - or what it has to do with the price of eggs for that matter. I would hazard a guess that we work entirely differently - without differentiation then none of us would survive never mind thrive in the torrents that are the housing industry - but as long as we are both at the very top of our respective trees then I don't think that is much of a problem... do you?
And while on that note it now seems that I may owe you an apology. It now seems that I was wrong that you could have been an incarnation of The Legend In His Own Lunchtime - although you certainly appear to be a qualified Chartered Surveyor with more than an edge of distaste of we mere mortals who dabble in your trade so I excuse myself in drawing a similarity there... but it goes to prove to my detriment that the definition of 'assume' is still (in part at least) as relevant today as ever!
You'd think I would know better at my age - still making occasional schoolboy errors when I should be starting to wind down towards my pension!
Now then - back to the whys and wherefores of our original kerfuffle.
It WAS pretty much a non-story, I agree (as we know are many that see publication on this site - but the purpose of EAT is to publicise the good, bad and ugly where we can all see it...); it does seem to have been released by someone who does not understand the complexities of what is a hugely complex subject and therefore should not/cannot be condensed into the three lines we see at the end of the storyline; and although Mr Hall will be mortally wounded by your description of the 'story' as weak and amateurish, I would agree that he could and should have done far better with what he spewed out to the media.
It is a pity that we cannot agree on what was the 'point' of Mr Hall's press release - but perhaps that is because he is talking at a level aimed at simple folks like me and you are apparently reading it on a higher plain and took exception to it on that level. The jury is obviously out on that one - and unfortunately even poor Adam can't figure it so you are currently marginally in the lead with the timely assistance of 'Pete' - but I must warn you that if I find out that he's your office junior simply licking up to The Boss I'll demand a recount!
I guess we'll just have to disagree on it.
So - we gonna do lunch sometime soon? ;o)
The reason I won't answer your question about what is reasonable is because that is my competitive edge; it is what will help me win instruction from my competitors. It is one of the most valuable things I possess. Knowing how much to add to a valuation to achieve best price for a vendor balanced with the commercial obligations of the business is the narrowest of tightropes, it is one of the things many agents do not understand and it is the reason I can pick and choose which properties I take on immediately, which I choose to delay and which I avoid altogether. Most agents do not understand how much profit is gained or lost by the decisions made on a new to market instruction. Two months of expense and futility pandering to ego or greed? Let me see…
You won’t trigger WWIII by not understanding the subtleties of those two equations, they are two and one day the penny will drop and you will be reminded of this thread.
Please do not quote what the TPO says at me as anything meaningful, it isn’t. The Property Ombudsman is a single commercial service supplier of redress. A wannabe trade body that allows low order Estate Agents to comply with an ineffectual bit of self-defeating nanny state legislation.By its very existence TPO allows unqualified agents to trade legitimately, camouflaging them amidst Agents who have undertaken professional qualification or who are governed by a trade body. Removing TPO and all other non trade association suppliers of redress would force membership of trade associations and compliance to an informed code of practice.
Clearly Peebee our experience of how to extract profit from property sales is different. Lawrence Hall has dished up a story that might be palatable to a casual or naïve audience, but in your last post you have started to recognise the anomalies and inconsistencies I spotted on first reading and why I re-read it and saw fit to post. One million pounds in most places buys a completely different property to the Home Counties and different again in Central London. Without quantifying and qualifying the type of property and its location the story becomes meaningless, without the timescales and history of reductions the story is meaningless and without considering circumstance it is apparent that the author is not a property professional. In my opinion the story remains weak, misleading and amateurish.
So...
You ask "...please would you suggest the reasons why a vendor or agent would reduce the asking price of a property that remains unsold?"
You're welcome to your 'bagsyed' answer. I wouldn't include it in any list but I dare say it would slip out of some office junior's mouth at some point if they were pushed into a corner by an irate vendor....
Firstly, the situation depends on whose asking price we are talking about here, does it not - the Agents or vendors?
Secondly, are we talking here about multi-million pound mansionettes and upscale estates (as per the story we are debating), or 27 Acacia Avenue-type suburban domiciles?
I would also ask you to revisit my previous questions to your goodself which received no response - especially as you now state "If a property stays on the market long enough to warrant a price reduction it indicates one of two things; the price was out of step with demand or demand was out of step with the price. In both cases the price was wrong; a sale has not been achieved quickly enough for either the vendor or the agent."
(incidentally - and at risk of setting off WWIII - aren't your "two things" actually just one?)
Of course I state the obvious here to say that an AGENT cannot reduce the price of a property without the formal instructions of the vendor.
I also state the obvious that in your offered reason for price reduction, the Agent's presumed wish for a sale in the shortest timescale matters not one chuff to the vendor - nor should it come in the way of achieving the best price for that vendor.
In your post to Adam you state "...an agent has a duty of care to correctly advise their clients and prospective clients according to the prevailing market conditions."
TPO states "When instructed to sell a property, your duty of care is to the seller. You must offer suitable advice to the sellers needs and aims."
A bit of a crossover there, I would suggest - although I acknowledge and accept that TPO do state that "You must never deliberately misrepresent the marketing price of a property.
You also state "No book on property valuation advises; “stick it on the market at a price to win the instruction knowing full well the place won’t sell.”
That is absolutely true. But we are not talking about VALUATION here, are we? we are talking about ASKING PRICE RECOMMENDATIONS - which you yourself have clearly stated previously "... can reasonably be expected to be higher than market valuation to allow for a rise in the market or to give room to negotiate"
IF higher initial prices are, as you suggest, the acceptable approach to marketing property - and you so far refuse to quantify what is "reasonable" in this respect - then we have a paradox, do we not?
I am not picking fault, I simply couldn't work out whether the multiple apostrophe gaffs and abbreviation errors included in your posts were deliberate acts of irony, trolling or unintentional error. Now we know how well you did at school we will have to assume them deliberate. Whatever the motivation they are there now and can not be edited.
I am also left wondering why your new mentor Peebee hasn't seen fit to point them out.
In terms of a contribution to this thread; “a lot of houses go up for sale for a lot more than they're actually worth but it is increasingly selfish and stubborn vendors who are at fault” is hardly an A+ answer.
What you have failed to grasp it that unrealistic asking prices costs vendors time and opportunity, it costs agents increased marketing spend and reputation. There is simply no point to the practice other than to help weak agents win un-saleable instructions.
Peebee can claim that prices can not be confirmed as right, wrong or whatever [whatever ‘whatever’ is] until a property is sold but an agent has a duty of care to correctly advise their clients and prospective clients according to the prevailing market conditions. No book on property valuation advises; “stick it on the market at a price to win the instruction knowing full well the place won’t sell.”
@Adam
The education system didn't fail me, thanks. I did rather well at school.
Have you anything to add to this conversation or did you just want to pick fault with me?
I am unsure whether you are a master of irony, a grammar troll looking to get a rise out of someone or are simply the product of an education system that has failed most of us.
Peebee said "It has nothing to do with whether or not the actual asking price is right, wrong or whatever. Let's face it - the properties are still on the market, unsold - so that has hardly been established yet!"
While you are in a conciliatory mood and looking to help Adam, please would you suggest the reasons why a vendor or agent would reduce the asking price of a property that remains unsold? I will bagsy ‘to sell the property more quickly’.
If price is commonly recognised as a function of supply, demand and time, it is not ‘MDT’ to challenge a story that still appears to contradict that premise.
If a property stays on the market long enough to warrant a price reduction it indicates one of two things; the price was out of step with demand or demand was out of step with the price. In both cases the price was wrong; a sale has not been achieved quickly enough for either the vendor or the agent. That does not mean necessarily mean the valuation was wrong but it does show that the timing is wrong.
PeeBee,
I just signed up for the newsletter, just to explain the slight change in username.
You make a good point about leaving my age and inexperience out. Definitely something I'll do in future.
Thanks for the help. I'll be sure to read your comments with great interest whenever I find them.
Adam - try us. You'll never know until you do.
If you are referring to your age or experience as being a hindrance to your credibility - leave them out of he equation. I'd love to hear what you have to offer.
Can't be any worse than that sometimes put forward by those who should be old and experienced enough not to embarrass themselves regularly on here...
As I said earlier, I read most of the articles on this site. As you mentioned earlier, PeeBee, I'm glad that there's people on here who I'd be able to talk to. At the moment I feel like people won't take my comments seriously/won't pay attention to then, but I'm sure that this will change over time.
Adam - the point was NEVER about poor grammar in this instance - although admittedly I did raise it as I was paraphrasing, but only as an aside.
For THAT, I apologise to the OP, as he/she has proven subsequently to be a master wordsmith.
Wrong as they come - but still billshuts with eloquence! :o)
PeeBee,
I've read this through a few more times, and I see your take on it. Vendors are becoming more selfish and stubborn and, due to this, the number of properties with reduced asking prices is declining.
While it's been mentioned lately by others, bad grammar and spelling doesn't take anything away from a persons' point, but good grammar and spelling make that point a lot better!
Adam
" I think a lot of houses go up for sale for a lot more than they're actually worth."
I wouldn't argue with you (or anyone else...) in the slightest on that count. We all know that to be the case - whether it be due to an overoptimistic (but genuine) appraisal figure, a blatant overvaluation, or simply a plain greedy vendor it happens too often. MY take on the story - and the cause of all the kerfuffle - is that Mr Hall is simply stating that VENDORS appear to be less likely/wiling to reduce their price than previously was the case.
It has nothing to do with whether or not the actual asking price is right, wrong or whatever. Let's face it - the properties are still on the market, unsold - so that has hardly been established yet!
Thanks for your comment, PeeBee. I'll take all the help I can get to get my head around this type of thing more easily.
To @PeeBee all I can say is I think I can learn from this site, as long as those with the experience stay on topic and not let personal confrontations get in the way of important matters which, personally, I think is happening here.
PeeBee, I'm unsure of my take on the original story. I think a lot of houses go up for sale for a lot more than they're actually worth.
'Pete'
If you are happy to ignore the constant use of poor spelling and grammar - on this site and everywhere we turn these days - then so be it but as I constantly remind those who are the worst offenders (Agents) this is a platform where the public can and do judge from what is written. If an Agent cannot differentiate between the three 'twos', the two 'theres' and the host of other common multiples that would feature in almost every set of sales particulars then Joe and Jane Public must fear for their ability to negotiate a sale if the Agent cannot even correctly write a description of their home!
But you probably won't agree with that either.
Can I just ask, 'Pete' - are you an Estate Agent? If not, what is your motivation for being "a long term follower" of EAT?
As for your last paragraph - I have, on many occasions apologised to others if I have overstepped a mark or misread a situation. In this instance I believe I am guilty of neither and stand firmly on that. If you do not read my posts (strange, then, that we are even having this dialogue...) as you don't like what I say or how I say it then so be it - I can live with that.
IF, as you claim to know be the case, "many others" do not want me to post on EAT then I suggest they contact the Editorial Director and make their feelings known.
Peebee, given your first post on this story I am not surprised at the reaction you received. Re-read what you typed and try to work out why you might have someone take exception.
You can not claim this is a chummy place for people like Adam to learn stuff if you are going to make unprovoked posts like that. As you have demonstrated the inability to edit posts on EAT does leave most posters with grammar and spelling errors that most would correct. Grammar pedantry might have had a place in 1950s/60’s education but as Grammar hasn’t been on the curriculum for an entire generation you might have to learn to put up with Estuary English, text speak and imperfect punctuation.
To hand down your opinion of another's motivation for posting is, in my opinion, a tad arrogant. If you disagreed with their opening comment why didn't you explain why instead of dishing out a hollow and petulant attack?
You claim you would admit to being wrong, somehow I suspect you would not. In respect of avoiding your aggressive and confrontational style, I and many others do exactly that to the detriment of EAT and LAT.
'Pete':
"...from what I read the other poster was making the valid points and you were simply being obtuse."
We are therefore reading very different accounts of the same situation.
"What I could not make out is why you disagreed so strongly..."
Because what he said was, in my opinion, wrong. Simple as.
"...didn't bother answer reasonable questions."
Because the ONLY question he asked - "How about you justify why some agents will take instructions, against their professional judgement and advice on value, and then spend money advertising them at a price that ignores market conditions?" - is not a reasonable one. He asked ME to justify - I have no justification to offer, as I do not subscribe to the practice. Hence my response. I then asked the poster two perfectly reasonable questions based upon his own statement which he conveniently glassed over. Funny how you don't draw that to anyone's attention...
"...finally gave the impression that you actually agreed that good agents don't over value to win instruction"
NO Agent should overvalue to win instruction. Can I be any clearer? Have I ever said anything to the contrary - you seem to have read enough of my previous posts to 'know' the answer to that question?
As to being "owned" - jeez I didn't realise THAT was the goal here.
IF I felt I was wrong I would be the first to accept it - as you will know if you are as ardent and long-term a browser of the site as you say you are.
Sorry - but in this instance I'm standing firm. I'm not changing my opinion but thanks for the comments, which I read with interest. I'm sure that you will avoid my "aggressive and unstable posting style" in future - I certainly would if I felt so strongly about someone else's.
With all due respects Peebee, from what I read the other poster was making the valid points and you were simply being obtuse.
What I could not make out is why you disagreed so strongly, didn't bother answer reasonable questions and finally gave the impression that you actually agreed that good agents don't over value to win instruction.
Adam would be wise not to engage with you, your aggressive and unstable posting style means you are all chummy one minute and a real curmudgeon the next.
If you want to make this a place were more than a few regulars knock chunks out of each other, mainly on subjects relating to Rightmove or property prices a good place to start would be your own posting style.
I am a long time follower of EAT right back to when TIm M used to post, it isn't often posters get the better of you but this time you’ve been owned.
Adam - ignore the previous poster. If you want to increase your knowledge of the industry this is a fantastic platform.
Believe it or not, there are some very friendly people in the industry - and many who post on here regularly - who will go all out to help you to become the professional you seem to aspire to be.
So... getting back to your comment - and I appreciate that your chosen field is lettings not sales - but what is YOUR take on the original story?
I know you hate it when Peter Hendry won't answer a question. Isn't it a shame you display exactly the same trait when someone has you hoist by your petard?
You run off shouting insults, come back shout a few more, it really is treat to watch. As a kindness here is an emoticon to slot into your armoury of petulance. :Þ
@adam this is not the place to learn anything.
I can't help but feel that the comments are getting off topic, here.
I'm 19, I work in a Residential Lettings office and ,admittedly, am not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to a lot of matters this site deals with. But I read these articles with a genuine interest, and I read the comments because I want to improve my overall knowledge of the industry.
Surely it doesn't matter who started this, or who said that. Let's just get back to talking about the articles, and not talking at each other?
"You know damn well that over inflating property prices to win instructions is the mark of the worse type of Agent, you also know damn well that a good agent will swoop on any price reduction by those agents who practice such poor tactics as a means to undermine the credibility of said Agents."
Excuse me - did I, or HAVE I, EVER said anything to the contrary?
You need your eyes examined. Get them to check the rest of your head while they are at it - if they don't mind working in the location it is currently stuck up, that is...
I don't sell houses anymore but here is how to deal with overpricing agents.
Let them have the instruction, sole agency, having haggled their sole agency rate onto the floor by undercutting and undercutting them to the point it is barely worth having on their books. One soon learns to stop one bid above the competition so as not to win the instruction.
Having failed to win the instructions, make it very clear to the vendor the price is too high and suggest a multiple Agency deal in 6 weeks time for 3%.
Ring all the applicants one knows might be interested and point out the overvaluation and suggest patience might be a good strategy to allow the vendor to see the error of employing an agent who over prices to win instructions. (Quote the other example one knows of)
6 weeks later slam dunk a primed applicant into the basket and pick up a profitable 3%. Naturally Overprice and co stand a chance of selling sole agency to some random Rightmove punter, so what? unprofitable commission rates are exactly that, there is no profit.
Naturally too Overprice and Co could sell to one of the applicants one has primed, a careful and factual annihilation of their practice and methodology (overpricing to win instruction and cutting fees to win instructions) never tends to endear such agents to applicants.
Funny, you actually started this with your sanctimonious cackle. It was you who started the discussion with your false allegation of my motivation for posting and your grammar pedantry.
Your cliché pathetic catchphrase attempt at a put down “Sir/Madam/Prefer-not-to-disclose...” cuts no ice and detracts from your credibility.
You know damn well that over inflating property prices to win instructions is the mark of the worse type of Agent, you also know damn well that a good agent will swoop on any price reduction by those agents who practice such poor tactics as a means to undermine the credibility of said Agents.
If Lawrence Hall wants to bring Primelocation onto Rightmove territory and attract the sort of Agent that needs Rightmove as a crutch to support their inability as an Agents so be it, but do not think for one second what he has presented makes any sense to a agent that is not of you ilk.
Peebee, you have been out gunned and humiliated yourself. I am delighted to see you scurry off in retreat but please have the good grace to do so without blaming me.
"I can not comprehend why an Agent would market a Property at a price where it needs to be reduced."
You must live in a totally different part of the country from where I am then. I would say the majority of stock coming to market round my way is significantly overpriced (asking prices 20% plus in excess of what the Land Registry suggests current selling prices for that type of property are).
EAs on this site don't deny that they overvalue in order to pander to vendors' delusions, then chip them down when they've had one viewing in six months. The idea being that an EA can't sell a property if it's on somebody else's books, so it is better to overvalue in the first place and win the instruction, then revisit the asking price with the vendor further down the line.
It seems that the human nature of greed doesn't exist where you are??
Sir/Madam/Prefer-not-to-disclose...
You have typed the truest words ever on this thread:
"It is a good job you post under a nom de plume it would not be wise to post the stuff you have posted under your real name..."
...you simply didn't realise that they should be directed at your goodself when you typed them.
And as you clearly could have an argument in an empty room, I'll leave you in here to get on with it.
Go ahead - knock yourself out!
Oh - and unlike your goodself, I'll not be posting under a variety of other names. You are incorrect yet again. Something you excel at, clearly...
245 words typed yet the only bit that added anything to the discussion was the admission you don't understand the concept of adding a bit on top of market value to achieve a timely sale.
I am quite sure you will not understand or accept that having to reduce the asking price on a property in a flat and rising market is a sign of failure.
You obviously can not see that setting a price that does not attract an offer is bad Estate Agency and sure as eggs is eggs you won't acknowledge that a reduction in the number of properties being advertised with prices set too high is not an indication that prices are holding up. Being not as badly wrong as one was is not the same as being right.
Accept it not I didn’t post for Hear, Hear comments, I posted because Lawrence Hall clearly does not know or understand Estate Agency, he has had a Ratner and so have you.
It is a good job you post under a nom de plume it would not be wise to post the stuff you have posted under your real name, now you are back in Agency your competitors would have a field day. You are fortunate; now you have destroyed your credibility and shown your true colours as a troll character more interested in baiting one-upmanship than dialogue you can change your posting name and can carry on posting under a new alias. I suspect you won’t, the level of arrogance and ignorance displayed in your posts means you don’t understand how wrong you are. Lawrence Hall was so obviously looking to pump out a Shipside style address to the nation aimed at raising the profile of Primelocation, what a pity he doesn’t understand this isn’t the way to go about promoting the one portal that doesn’t attract the contempt and distain of its stable mate or competition.
PS the only Peebee cliché you haven't used is the MDT one. Surely you can find a way of getting hat (sic) in somehow?
"From your many verbal conflicts... it is apparent that in your eyes Agents do no wrong."
You could be no further from reality than if you were the man himself. And if you were to have read my many previous posts on wide-ranging industry matters you would have more sense than to state that.
"How about you justify why some agents will take instructions, against their professional judgement and advice on value, and then spend money advertising them at a price that ignores market conditions?"
No. Why should I answer for them? It is up to an individual Agent - myself included - to provide their own justification as to their actions. I, for one, am perfectly comfortable with the advice I give my prospective vendors and with the values of those properties I actually list, thank you - sorry for piddling on your puny firework in that respect.
"An asking price can reasonably be expected to be higher than market valuation to allow for a rise in the market or to give room to negotiate,"
So - to what extent is this "room for negotiation" you quote as being "reasonably be expected"?
What timescale do you refer to in "allowing for a rise in the market"?
Seems to me that YOU are the one with he RR infatuation - in fact it's probably one of SELF-infatuation if I am not mistaken, Sir.
One way or another - you're right up there in his league.
You mentioned Pot, Kettle and Black yesterday. It seems that you aren't immune from a slip on the keyboard either.
From your many verbal conflicts with Peter Hendry it is apparent that in your eyes Agents do no wrong. Here is a story, predominately centred on the South East where the market has been flat or rising for the 3 years mentioned in the article, where the claim is the number of properties that are having their asking prices cut is reduced. I can not comprehend why an Agent would market a Property at a price where it needs to be reduced.
How about you justify why some agents will take instructions, against their professional judgement and advice on value, and then spend money advertising them at a price that ignores market conditions?
An asking price can reasonably be expected to be higher than market valuation to allow for a rise in the market or to give room to negotiate, but to suggest or condone an asking price that is set so outside experienced guidelines to warrant a price reduction is simply bad advice.
Sir/Madam/Prefer-not-to-disclose - I am afraid that you are in the very same boat that you have placed Mr Hall in.
"The only things that article says are that fewer properties have been incorrectly priced for initial marketing."
The article "says" nothing of the kind. The ONLY thing hat can be deduced from the article above is that less million-pound-plus homes are being reduced in price than previous. Mr Hall states that this is an INDICATION that VENDORS of these properties feel more bullish about their asking prices than a year ago.
Now - please enlighten - from where did you extract YOUR interpretation?
What Lawrence Hall has written does not make sense.
It is wrong to claim that asking prices are holding up because fewer properties are having their asking price reduced. The only things that article says are that fewer properties have been incorrectly priced for initial marketing.
Agents in Rickmansworth are worse at getting the asking price right than agents in Guernsey.
Agents in Surrey don't over price as much as agents in Bath or Edinburgh.
Prices do not hold up or down, they are what they are and it is an agent’s job to advise and market accordingly.
P.S You really ought to let the Realising Reality sniping go now Peebee. Your infatuation with him is becoming a bit concerning.
Previous poster with an even more ridiculous monicker than 'Realising Reality':
I have read your comment three times more than you have apparently read the subject story and would only say "kettle...pot".
In your own words - "Seriously , what is this about.?" (apologies on YOUR behalf for the terrible punctuation...)
I suggest you try reading it a fourth time to see if yon penny droppeth. I 'got' the article's message three readings earlier, and I can only assume from the dearth of 'hear, hears' in support of your comment that so did everyone else! ;o)
I have read this 3 times trying to work out whether all this yack is actually a story.
I can't make head nor tail of this, all of a sudden a fall in the number of over egged asking prices is something positive?
Seriously , what is this about.? A reduction in the number of properties being marketed at over inflated price is not a positive measure of the property market. It might be an indication that Agents are not taking on property that is over priced, it might indicate vendors are becoming more realistic but it certainly does not indicate that prices are holding up. All this indicates it that the number of incorrectly market properties has fallen and that agents in Rickmansworth are really giving some appalling advice, presumably to win instructions from equally un-professional Agents.