Just to counterract the 'sky is falling' house price crash merchants...

...I had a feeling you lot wouldnt be posting this, even though we get plenty of posts every time there is a report prices fall by even the smallest margin.

"House prices inch higher in July"

formatting link
Very little consolation for the merchants of doom in this report :-)

Reply to
Tumbleweed
Loading thread data ...

It's this which is patent nonsense in the London area:

"But the figures showed that house prices rose by just 2.6 per cent in the year to July"

House prices have crashed here in the year to July, no slump, crash,

1/3 off, something of that order of magnitude, back to 2001 prices. They've fallen so far I can quite believe they might start inching up again in the near future (if you want a straw to clutch at)!
Reply to
troysteadman

Reply to
Andy Pandy

post a post code here and we can look that up and judge for ourselves.

Reply to
Tumbleweed

Look at the volumes.

Reply to
Aztech

and?

Reply to
Tumbleweed

They're like 50% down.

Reply to
Aztech

formatting link
House prices hike disputed by Rachel Pegg

A survey claiming house prices have rocketed in a coastal town have been rubbished by estate agents.

New figures from the Halifax House Price Index appear to show homes in Bexhill have gone up by almost 20 per cent, while prices across most of Sussex have been static or falling.

But property experts working in the town say the figures have been skewed because owners of large homes have remortgaged or accepted low offers.

They say in fact over the last year prices have fallen by up to ten or

15 per cent, in line with a national downturn in the market.

The Halifax Index is a well-respected survey in the industry. Its prices are based on the average prices of houses on which an offer of a mortgage has been made, rather than homes sold on the open market.

The latest results, which compare prices in the second quarter of 2005 with the same period last year, appear to show a 19 per cent rise in prices in Bexhill and nine per cent rise in Hastings.

Allan Knight, director of Bexhill-based Chris Campbell and Company, said: "We are finding the opposite. There are an awful lot of people remortgaging properties.

"We have found a five per cent drop in prices. There are 15 agents in Bexhill. It isn't a large town. We are all loaded with instructions. We have had 27 this month."

He said there were sales being made in the upper end of the market because sellers were being sensible and accepting a £20,000 or £30,000 reduction in price now to save themselves having to make a much larger reduction of an estimated £100,000 at a later date.

A leading estate agent in Bexhill, who did not want to be named, said: "They have fallen by ten to 15 per cent. House prices that are achieved are different from people's mortgage applications.

"People are borrowing more money. It is definitely not going up."

In Brighton, the market was shown to be unchanging, with a one per cent rise in prices.

Graham Bull, director of residential property for Oakley Residential which covers Brighton and Hove, said: "I think the prices in Brighton and Hove are going to be static for the next year or two."

(Graham Bull!! - chortle)

This is the first time I've ever seen a report suggesting public disagreement between two principal vested interests.

Reply to
curiosity

Try Bexhill-on-sea!!

Reply to
curiosity

You can have a browse here:

formatting link
Tolworth Road Thornhill Road

...no sales at all in 2006 (maybe the data is not yet available).

Raeburn Avenue Elgar Avenue Elmbridge Avenue Beresford Avenue

...likewise.

We moved from Beresford Avenue in 2000, a long road of neat semis, when house prices in the road for unextended houses averaged around £200,000. They were priced at £300,000 in 2005 (to judge from nethouseprices.com) but it's now possible to see that they weren't selling at that price, any more than they are selling now at £240,000.

It's an inexact science. All houses are different, some get improved or are split. I reckon the Nationwide calculator fails to allow for that, which is why it is hopelessly wrong.

Reply to
troysteadman

Or maybe I've jumped a year. Bloody tardis!

Reply to
troysteadman

50% down on what? Measured over what period? Down over the average per year over the past 10,20, 30 years? Or down compared to a particular year when there was a boom? Or something else?
Reply to
Tumbleweed

LOL. But while you are there, please bring me back a copy of the Racing Post and the FT (making sure to keep the section with stock prices), I'll happily pay list price for both and a fiver for your trouble :-)

Reply to
Tumbleweed

"Tumbleweed" wrote

I'll pay a tenner over list. Any advance on that?

Reply to
Tim

The Land Registry release figures every quarter, you can check sales volumes for a given area here :-

formatting link
If you take Greater London for example the sales for Jan - Mar 2005 were

23,340 and for July - Sept 2004 they were 47,029. In the South East sales were 83,152 and 40,125 respectively.

The trend carries for all regions, that's quite a drop in volumes even allowing for normal seasonal adjustments, you can select given quarters or regions for yourself if you like. Even if prices are holding up such a drop in transactions will make a number of estate agents somewhat superfluous.

You also need to consider other leading indicators like volume of property on the market, number of buyers, time to sell, actual price relative to asking prices.

Reply to
Aztech

In message , Aztech writes

Why didnt you select like for like? AFAIR, I always used to think I was going bust in the first quarter of the year, then all came good around April to September. The figures you quote reflect my experience over 17 years of estate agency.

I recall that, when we opened in 1987, there were 5 estate agents on the "patch". By 1991 there were 12, and by 1996 it was back to 8. It's 12 now - watch this space!

Reply to
Richard Faulkner

In message , Aztech writes

The question then is what was the sales volume Jan-Mar 2004 that is the figure you should be comparing the Jan-Mar 2005 figures.

Reply to
me

Fine, still doesn't look good no matter how you dice it

Jan - March 04 Greater London - 40792 South East - 69033

Jan - March 05 Greater London - 23340 South East - 40125

Reply to
Aztech

I have done in the other post, I'm not trying to prove anything by omission, the figures are there for everyone to see on the LR site.

<

I suppose at the moment most are fitfully occupying themselves by dealing with irate vendors wanting to know why they've only had two viewings in the last 6 months, plus listing homes from the higher volume of sellers on the market... and paying the advertising fees. How long can these activities keep the wolf from the door?

I suppose composing theories proving how prices are not elemental to volumes will also take up a good deal of time. I personally the blame the drop in sales on Aunt Betsy buying fish on Tuesday, price doesn't come into it.

Reply to
Aztech

Now look back at the figures for Jan-Mar.'95 & Jan-Mar.'96 :-

Jan - March 95 Greater London - 25203 South East - 42801

Jan - March 96 Greater London - 26136 South East - 44985

Looks incredibly similar to Jan-Mar. 2005

-- and we all know what happened to prices after 1995, don't we? ;-)

Here we go - the sky's the limit!!!

Reply to
Tim

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.