Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There is nothing wrong with too many estate agents, I for one would have been stuck with one crappy Foxtons valuation of my home otherwise and considering a house is the most important investment in most peoples lives it seems perfectly ok to me that we have a choice so that we can have a bit of competition. Lets face it, what would replace all these estate agents anyhow? Yet another boutique no one goes to? I'd rather look at bland pictures of an interior of a 2 bed flat than some poncy kitchen utensil I wouldnt dream of buying unless I had a screw loose.


Louisa.

Quite simply, the more agents there are, the fewer

properties they each get to sell and so they have

to offset this will higher fees



I am not an economist but I thought things worked the other way round. The more agents there are means more competition so they have to reduce prices to get the job.

AndrewDBlack - I have to admit, I am the son of an economist - not that in any way I claim to be an expert! Clearly If there is one sole provider in an area for any given service, then they have a monopoly. It doesn't matter if it is a cable TV supplier or the train company on a certain route - we often have no choice who we can use. If there were two companies, then there would be a choice. Three or four would be healthy. I really do remain to be convinced why this little high street of ours requires to have twenty estate agents. Only indian restaurants comes close. Lordship Lane offers a useful selection of local services but wouldn't it be better, if we could choose, to have fewer estate agents and a variety of everything else? like a choice of:

book shops

butchers

clothes shops

delis

fishmongers

glaziers

joiners

music shops

opticians

picture framers

printers / stationers

restaurants - another french or italian

shoe shops

video rentals

i could go on...


These are the things that I certainly use more regularly than an estate agent.

AndrewDBlack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quite simply, the more agents there are, the

> fewer

> properties they each get to sell and so they

> have

> to offset this will higher fees

>

> I am not an economist but I thought things worked

> the other way round. The more agents there are

> means more competition so they have to reduce

> prices to get the job.



Andrew, basic 'O level' (yes, I'm really that old) economics also taught me the mantra about supply and demand determining prices, but what I've found with estate agents, regardless of how the general market is performing, is that they are open to negotiation, it's the way they and the whole buying/selling process operates.


gh is right about the oversupply of EAs on LL affecting the choice of other retailers, but what is interesting is that in the 3 years I have lived in ED I can only remember one EA (Uniplan) leaving the main LL drag (roundabout to Cop Shop) and only 1 arriving (Foxtons - boo hiss!) despite the up/downturn that has occurred in that time, so perhaps it has found it's natural level, only time and the current downturn will tell. I think most EAs will survive this downturn as their income from lettings has risen sharply to help compensate. Maybe an agent like Halifax will suffer as they rely on sales only, but the upside for them is that they have a steady supply of bargain mortgage defaults!

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...