That’s ultimately the answer and how the game is supposed to work. Lower the prices enough and someone will buy.
But people don’t want to then sell their property for £50k+ less than they paid for it, and I can understand their reluctance. So rather than just accept a lower price, they take the property off the market and just wait things out. Only those desperate enough will lower their price significantly, but I’d imagine those people would be a rarity.
So now you end up with house prices that don’t really fall in any meaningful way and social mobility is hurt, which has wider implications.
What if you lowered prices further?
That’s ultimately the answer and how the game is supposed to work. Lower the prices enough and someone will buy.
But people don’t want to then sell their property for £50k+ less than they paid for it, and I can understand their reluctance. So rather than just accept a lower price, they take the property off the market and just wait things out. Only those desperate enough will lower their price significantly, but I’d imagine those people would be a rarity.
So now you end up with house prices that don’t really fall in any meaningful way and social mobility is hurt, which has wider implications.
How many properties are financed by banks? At some point, people are forced to sell.
I guess it depends on why they’re selling. For some, it won’t be worth the financial penalty and will just stay put.
That’s not really how markets work.
Reducing your price helps you sell in a market with many buyers and sellers.
However, if there are very few buyers, then you have to reduce your price unreasonably.
Is it also unreasonable when the prices go up because of scarcity, or is it only not fair if the seller loses?
There there pet.
But that would hurt the market!