PDA

View Full Version : House still not sold!


Chacha
13th Jan 2009, 22:46
thats a year come this march it will have been on the market! thinking of renting it out and have had 3 agencies with prices ... I am down sizing ...
anyone else here thinking of doing the same! also the estate agents keep telling me to knock the price down and i have .. cant go any lower or might as well give it away for nothing! already come down 25g! .. NO! NO! NO!:ugh:

redsnail
13th Jan 2009, 23:00
These are the questions only you can answer.

Why are you selling?

How much did you buy the house for?

What's the equity?

Do I need to sell it now or can I wait?

Only you can answer them and those answers will dictate whether you lower the price or take it off the market until it improves.

Rollingthunder
13th Jan 2009, 23:13
Vancouver might be on hook for Olympic Village
The city gambled it would easily sell condos after the Games in 2010
MIRO CERNETIG, CanWest news service
Published: Friday, January 09

It's built on Vancouver's valuable waterfront real estate. How could taxpayers ever get soaked building a glittering, billion-dollar athletes' village for the Olympics?

Easier than you might think.

Thinking it couldn't lose in the real-estate big leagues, a few years ago the City of Vancouver guaranteed the world it could build the Olympic Village for 2010 - and even make a profit. Now the global financial crisis has turned a supposedly sure thing into a high-stakes gamble.

The dilemma is that the local condo market has turned. The Olympic condo units, which were supposed to be occupied by athletes during the Games and then turned over to new owners, are probably worth 10-to-20-per-cent less than they were expected to be.

Even worse, the prospect of fast sales - most were expected to sell by 2010 - has evaporated. If they don't want to sell at fire-sale prices, city officials now realize sales will probably need to be delayed until the market rebounds, whenever that might be.

Holding off on selling in a falling market is, of course, what any savvy real-estate holder would do. But there's a problem: The Olympic Village is built on a mountain of borrowed money.

Putting off sales will certainly mean extending hundreds of millions of dollars in construction loans well beyond 2010. And that comes at a high price.

Vancouver city officials, and its new administration, continue to keep the details of the Olympic Village finances under a cone of secrecy. But here's what they are looking at:

The biggest loan to construct the Olympic Village is $750 million from Fortress Investment, a Wall St. financial firm. Another, emergency loan of up to $100 million was recently approved by the city. Then there's another $160 million still owed to the city of Vancouver for the sale of the waterfront land where the Olympic Village sits.

Now the assets: There are about 750 Olympic condo units that will go on the market. So far, about 250 of the lower-price condos have been sold at an average price of about $800,000, or $200 million.

Now do the math.

Let's assume building the Olympic Village entails the developer drawing down the full amount of the loans. That means $850 million left to pay. Another $160 million must also be paid back to the City of Vancouver, for its land. Total project liabilities: about $1 billion.

Now, let's optimistically assume all those 250 condos already purchased (mostly on deposit) complete their deals. At an average of $800,000 apiece, that would generate $200 million. That brings total liabilities down to about $800 million.

A year ago, paying that off didn't seem problematic. The remaining 500 units - with prices as high as $6 million - would surely earn enough to put the project solidly in the black after 2010.

Now, with nobody lining up for condos, quick repayment is unlikely. So that means extending the terms of the loans, possibly by years. What's that going to cost?

It's hard to say without seeing the books. But a conservative bet is that in the tight credit market, interest would be about six per cent a year on $800 million in liabilities. (That includes the $160-million the city is still owed, which would likely earn six per cent, too, if it were in hand and shrewdly invested. )

For City of Vancouver liabilities read taxpayers liability and tax burden.I think I predicted an Olympic fiasco a while back

Union Jack
13th Jan 2009, 23:25
Chacha

If considering renting, don't forget to check quietly what any lender's policy is on your doing so.

Jack

PS RT - Presumably a case of "Now is the Winter Games of our discontent" or even "Now is the Winter Games of our discount tent" ....

corsair
13th Jan 2009, 23:30
I'm on the opposite side of the conundrum. I can't buy the house. We were looking for a while then found the nearest thing to the perfect house within the limitations we have. Near the beach, walking distance in fact, good area, room for an extension, right price and for my wife near her favourite sister.

Our offer was accepted and our mortgage advisor was confident. While my income is spotty, hers is rock solid and as safe as is possible in these times. We even have money in the bank.

Rejected, not so long ago they would have surrounded us begging us to take their offer. But now...................

That's the problem, I daresay people want your house but can't get the money. We'll try again soon but the problem with the house is that everthing which makes it desirable probably will sell it to someone who can scrape across the arbitary line the banks have now set.

That's the problem with this recession, until the banks are prepared to lend money no one going anywhere whether it be to businesses or to people like us who are in fact very low risk. The idiocy of the whole thing is that the banks caused this by lending money to people who were high risk and are now defaulting. Meanwhile the likes of us who are low risk and never defaulted on a mortgage payment in our lives can't get a loan for anything.

It's so frustrating.:ugh:

airfoilmod
13th Jan 2009, 23:35
know or otherwise can connect with Henry Poulsen? He is Treasurer of the United States, and when he demanded 750 billion dollars from Congress it took him only four days to close escrow. He is "bailing out former partners"(sic) who are having cash embarrassments due to straw head investments, and he has no established parameters for borrowers, other than aforementioned acquaintyance or relation. I'd look him up, but I've plenty for now.

AF


(I understand he keeps horses- TB's, not morgy's, and he is quite the dancer, CHACHA. Too bad he's been known to refer to Canada as
"America's Hat". Pity.

Low Flier
13th Jan 2009, 23:48
Chacha, accept the fact that your house is worth, at best, 20% less than it really was when you floated it at an overpriced valuation early last year.

Accept the fact that it will lose another 20% this year. And probably another 10% next year.

Reprice it accordingly and then decide whether you really want to sell it.

If you really want to sell it, then you must price it to sell, not to keep.

cockney steve
14th Jan 2009, 00:01
As per the advice above, BUT REMEMBER, the house you are BUYING should also have a downward-revised price.

Where a house for occupancy is concerned, it's the RELATIVE value between 2 properties that's important, not the actual number of pounds/dollars/euros,.......if you are "cashing it in", well, that's a different ball-game altogether.

con-pilot
14th Jan 2009, 00:34
Well, it could always 'accidentally' burn down.

However, if it does 'accidentally' burn down, make sure you don't 'accidentally' remove all of your expensive and/or very personal items from the house before the 'accidental' fire.

Fire Marshal, "Excuse me Mr./Ms. home owner, this fire seems a bit suspicious."

Home owner, "Oh no, the fire came up all sudden like, terrible thing it was."

Fire Marshal, "It does seem a bit strange that all of your expensive furnishing, such as the grand piano, all the big flat screen TVs, most of the paintings on the walls, family pictures and all of your jewelry managed to escape the flames. Not to mention your three dogs, four cats and the tropical fish."

Home owner, "You forgot that I got out the fur coats as........oops."




A true story about a lady that burned down her home for the insurance. Yup, she went to jail.

Loose rivets
14th Jan 2009, 05:07
Watched nearly two hours of Professor Niall Fruguson tonight. Stunning...bewildering...the numbers are from science fiction. How could it happen?

So house prices won't fall? Japan...One third of the value of last year on some properties.

It's vital to hang on...rent if possible, 'don't sell wealth'. Wished I'd followed my own advise:(

I personally think this recession is nothing more than the type of oscillation that you see in traffic. Huge delays, then when you get to the focal point, there's nothing there. All the pain, all the greed, soon not even enough for 'Every man's needs'.


Globalization - Professor Niall Ferguson - The Business Summit - Harvard Business School (http://www.hbs.edu/centennial/businesssummit/nferguson.html#begin)

henry crun
14th Jan 2009, 08:34
Warning, thread digression.

Con: Many years ago I was travelling with a friend after a summer holiday. On a stinking hot day we were towing boat along a dusty rough country unsealed road for about 2 hours.
To made the journey more bearable there was a country pub at the end of the road and the thought of that first cold beer slithering down our throats.

We came round the final corner and there was the pub............a pile of ashes.
However, due to our pecular licensing laws at that time, a public house was not allowed to stop serving alcoholic drinks for more than 24 hours, under the threat of having their license revoked.

To keep on the right side of the law the owners had erected a sort of canvas covered lean to alongside the ruins, so we entered and there was a plank serving as a bar with a keg of beer propped up on one end.
No sign of a publican but there was a large Maori gentleman on our side with a glass of beer in his hand.

We asked the obvious "had a fire then ?"
To which he replied " yes man, you know how it is, not enough money coming in and too much going out, they had to burn it down". :)

radeng
14th Jan 2009, 08:49
The Daily Telegraph Matt cartoon for today has asuggestion. Unfortunately, I can't get the url to copy.

House with a big sign by it saying 'Site of proposed new runway'

Man outside saying to neighbour 'It isn't really, but I'm hoping Greenpeace will buy it'

UniFoxOs
14th Jan 2009, 09:04
Chacha,
Had you thought about part exchange? Take a cheaper place in part-ex, say worth 30-40% less, OK you stilll have a property to sell, but a cheaper, probably easier one, or maybe an easier one to rent out, and cash in bank (or reduced mortgage). Only downside is two lots of costs, but against that there would be a reduction in tax.

An alternative inducement I will be trying is offerring to pay the buyer's tax - it's just another way of knocking a bit off the price but sounds a hell of a lot more attractive, as people hate paying the government!

When we get our new place finished and the current one goes on the market I am intending to try offering both (but a buyer could only take one).

Cheers
UFO

Captain Stable
14th Jan 2009, 09:20
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01238/matt140109_1238358b.gif

anotherthing
14th Jan 2009, 11:33
Cha Cha -

Has your house been constantly on the market for the year? If so, seriously think about taking an advertising break of 2 months then re-market it with a different estate agent.

4-6 weeks is supposedly the prime time for advertising a house, interest wanes after that... and you will also find that estate agents will be more interested in pushing new property on their books, rather than one that has been on the books for a year.

You also have the problem that an estate agent will hint to prospective buyers that the property has been on the market for a year and that you might be open to offers.

When you do re-advertise, barter with the estate agent over their commission - you should get a very good deal in the currentmarket.

I had a property for sale in June 2007, just before the market started to stagnate... it was sold November 2008 for 70k less than the (old) market value... fortunately my employers covered the shortfall.

If you can afford to, hold onto it... if you are merely downsizing because you don't need the space, it's probably best not to sell just yet. LLoyds believe that the market will drop another 10% this year before bottoming out - that'l be a near 25% drop all in from the last high.

You need to weigh up how long you are prepared to hold onto the property for, as it will take several years to get it back to an acceptable price for you.

angels
14th Jan 2009, 12:38
Corsair - That's the problem with this recession, until the banks are prepared to lend money no one going anywhere whether it be to businesses or to people like us who are in fact very low risk. The idiocy of the whole thing is that the banks caused this by lending money to people who were high risk and are now defaulting. Meanwhile the likes of us who are low risk and never defaulted on a mortgage payment in our lives can't get a loan for anything.

You have summed up what this crunch is all about admirably. I'm sorry it had to come from the heart.

Forkandles
14th Jan 2009, 13:19
Is that a year without a sniff or have you had viewings but no offers?
My house went on the market last July and we only had 2 viewings by September. Whenever I phoned the estate agents, the phone just rang and rang or went to a machine. I decided prospective buyers wouldn't be too happy with being kept waiting, so I changed agents in September and it was sold in November. Lost 10k on what I'd paid for it 18 months previous, but as I'm moving abroad in April, it had to go.

Scumbag O'Riley
14th Jan 2009, 15:06
Meanwhile the likes of us who are low risk and never defaulted on a mortgage payment in our lives can't get a loan for anything.I just opened a new bank account and they gave me an overdraft five and a half times more than I requested.

Strangely enough, we recently remortgaged and were knocked back by a couple of high st lenders as being unsuitable.

So unsecured loan = OK.
Very safe and very affordable, IMO, secured loan = Not OK.

Weird.

And nobody can sell houses round here but I assume that's because they are also asking too much.

SpringHeeledJack
14th Jan 2009, 16:44
So unsecured loan = OK.
Very safe and very affordable, IMO, secured loan = Not OK.


Probably the caring banks are so stretched out and running scared that they don't want to lend a large amount on an asset that could well go down in value over the next years. I've heard it said that certain lenders are redeeming mortgages from some of their customers (who are up to date and good payers) because they need the lent money back to shore up their books and that they are allowed to do so!

The unsecured loan is relatively small fry and they can always get the money off the good customer should any problems arise by seizing property etc. Also the risk of lending for 2 years or so is much smaller than the 25 years or so of a mortgage term.

The banks inundate us with offers when we don't need help and when we do..... :ugh::ugh:


regards


SHJ

flowman
14th Jan 2009, 17:19
Surely there is only one reason something won't sell, and that's because it's too expensive.
It just depends how low you are prepared to drop the price and how desperate you are to sell.

Chacha
14th Jan 2009, 17:50
5 bedroom 3 bathrooms .. garage .. secluded gardens ....1/4 acre garden .. golf course and park next door .. school a stonethrow away ... affluent part of town ... .. off to read the rest of replies ,, thanks so far .. x

SpringHeeledJack
14th Jan 2009, 18:13
5 bedroom 3 bathrooms .. garage .. secluded gardens ....1/4 acre garden .. golf course and park next door .. school a stonethrow away ... affluent part of town ... .. off to read the rest of replies ,, thanks so far .. x

Then Chacha, 25,000 off the selling price isn't probably that much at all. That said, it depends when you purchased the property, and it might be of course that you are now selling it for the same/less than you paid for it. That smarts and I hope that you are still equity rich.

If you don't need to move, then stay, or if you must go, then rent it out so at least the mortgage is covered, but check with your lender. Most don't seem too bothered, but in the small print lyeth the devil.

Sometimes, it's better to see it as a business/commercial deal rather than the selling of one's home and centre, because you can be sure that the lovely estate agents don't give a flying fig about your situation, only their commission. Change agents after a pause to let you be forgotten and perhaps to mull things over with family and friends.

Also, and you might think 'what crap', but do you really want to move/sell your home ? You might be suprised at the lack of results if the energy you send out is strong enough and it sounds like your house is really nice!


regards


SHJ

cockney steve
15th Jan 2009, 15:06
withdraw from the agents, make sure your presentation is AI(immaculate exterior ,no moss or green algae on concrete or tarmac paths etc.)

Then advertise it yourself! I argued this with a business agent who wanted cash up front for advertising and pointed out that I paid for the stock in my shop and took the risk that what I offered was attractive to potential buyers.
the counter-argument was that they could buy advertising much cheaper than me....."but the 2 to 4 thousand saved commission will buy an awful lot more adverts,-goodbye"

The saved commission will give you a bit more room to discount.