We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
"Average House prices"
Comments
-
http://www.nethouseprices.com/index.php?con=sold_prices_street_detail&street=CANON+BYRNE+GLEBE&locality=&town=KIRKCALDY&cCode=SC&year=All&house_style=All&house_age=All&search_radius=&outcode=KY1&incode=2REI could give 50 examples but more importantly there isnt a single sale in my town in the last 2 years that has sold for a price comparable to that of 2007.
Different street, same comparables.
No need to show more I think:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »
No need to show more I think
Ouch.....
Poor Kriss Boy should be hanging his head in shame.
Why on earth would someone come on here making outlandish claims that could be so easily disproved?
No wonder carolt never wants to tell us which area she lives in....:eek:“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Wrong, on so many levels.
Some indices, like Acadametrics and Land Registry, do exactly measure like for like by using repeat sales regression (sales of the same house) as the basis for their index. And those indices also show rises broadly similar to all the rest.
Other indices, like Haliwide, DCLG, etc, use hedonic regression. (clustering of properties into type, ie, 1 bed flat, 3 bedroom terrace, 4 bedroom detached, etc)
All of this eliminates most of the basis for skew that you claim above, and what skew that does exist from the one valid point you have (that nicer houses sell for more than crap ones) is removed by the dilution through volume.
Volumes are still huge...... A million houses a year is indeed less than two million houses a year, but it still equates to one house in every 17 houses in owner occupation selling each and every year.
So your point about only "good" houses selling is a bit bizarre, unless you are claiming that a million houses each year are only the "good" ones....... In which case how long do you expect this supply of "good" ones to last?
As has been explained above, it doesn't work like that. The indices adjust this out by using methodologies like same sales regression.
But I will agree that if you're in the market for a !!!!!! house, you can still get a bargain...... And !!!!!! houses will be the last to recover, it's been that way after every boom and bust.
Do you want to live in a !!!!!! house carol? Because if not, it's irrelevant.
I remember towards the end of the last boom, sh1te houses were practically selling at a premium as having "potential". People did get rather carried away.0 -
How exactly are 'average' house prices calculated?
Is it simply the mean value for houses sold within a particular period, irrespective of the property type/size?
If so 'average house' prices arent a particularly accurate measure of the intrinsic value of property when the sample data is so low.
ie, it would only take a couple of big sales to skew the mean. Therefore when dont we analyse modal or median averages?
There are different ways to overcome this.
For example, the Land Registry does it by tracking each individual house and measuring the change in its price when sold (unless it's sold for < £1,000,000 or is a repossessed or probate sale property IIRC).
Others do something called 'mix adjustment' which compensates for more big houses or studio flats being sold in a month.
Generally speaking the samples used are pretty big; 10s of thousands of properties although clearly that needs to be broken down into different types of property.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Wrong, on so many levels.
Some indices, like Acadametrics and Land Registry, do exactly measure like for like by using repeat sales regression (sales of the same house) as the basis for their index. And those indices also show rises broadly similar to all the rest.
Other indices, like Haliwide, DCLG, etc, use hedonic regression. (clustering of properties into type, ie, 1 bed flat, 3 bedroom terrace, 4 bedroom detached, etc)
All of this eliminates most of the basis for skew that you claim above, and what skew that does exist from the one valid point you have (that nicer houses sell for more than crap ones) is removed by the dilution through volume.
Volumes are still huge...... A million houses a year is indeed less than two million houses a year, but it still equates to one house in every 17 houses in owner occupation selling each and every year.
So your point about only "good" houses selling is a bit bizarre, unless you are claiming that a million houses each year are only the "good" ones....... In which case how long do you expect this supply of "good" ones to last?
As has been explained above, it doesn't work like that. The indices adjust this out by using methodologies like same sales regression.
But I will agree that if you're in the market for a !!!!!! house, you can still get a bargain...... And !!!!!! houses will be the last to recover, it's been that way after every boom and bust.
Do you want to live in a !!!!!! house carol? Because if not, it's irrelevant.
What I do or do not want is rather irrelevant to the discussion, I think, Hamish. Although extremely typical of your attempt to include a personal slur in every post.
What is relevant is that you've answered none of my points - most houses don't sell on an annual basis so there is no survey that can be based on the identical houses selling and give you an accurate 5% figure - unless it's based on such a tiny sample that it's effectively meaningless.
And as I stated - though you strangely appeared to miss my point - there is huge variation in 3-bed semis, say - my point was that only the good quality 3 bed semis in desirable streets were selling - your points about volume are irrelevant as the total volume is made up entirely of houses like this. Which is why total sales volumes are so low at the moment.
Until we return to the kind of market we had pre-2007 where around double as many houses were sellling as now, it's clear that lots of houses that would have sold in a previous market are not selling now.
As you said, Hamish, you are wrong on so many levels.0 -
Round here (which is not that far away from carolt's, though not her target area):
the good stuff at the right price sells;
the rubbish doesn't sell at any price;
the good stuff overpriced doesn't sell - at the higher prices it seems to stick and at the lower prices it seems to reduce then sell.
My explaination is that people need big deposits to get mortgages, so they have no money to improve the rubbish and therefore the rubbish doesn't sell. At the sort of prices where you'd be mad to go for 90% mortgages, the stuff in need of work does tend to move, though it can take longer.I'm a Forum Ambassador on the housing, mortgages & student money saving boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Forum Ambassadors are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.0 -
Round here (which is not that far away from carolt's, though not her target area):
the good stuff at the right price sells;
the rubbish doesn't sell at any price;
the good stuff overpriced doesn't sell - at the higher prices it seems to stick and at the lower prices it seems to reduce then sell.
My explaination is that people need big deposits to get mortgages, so they have no money to improve the rubbish and therefore the rubbish doesn't sell. At the sort of prices where you'd be mad to go for 90% mortgages, the stuff in need of work does tend to move, though it can take longer.
So basically agreeing with my point.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Ouch.....
Poor Kriss Boy should be hanging his head in shame.
Why on earth would someone come on here making outlandish claims that could be so easily disproved?
No wonder carolt never wants to tell us which area she lives in....:eek:
The two examples provided just back up what Ive said- that at best some modern flats have only dropped slightly in recent years.
Ask yourself what incentive I have to come on here and argue that my property has dropped in value. Why would I lie about the details of property sales in my area?
At the end of the day I know what properties were selling for in 2007/2008 and I know how notably cheaper they are listed today (and still not shifting).0 -
Also, dont the Halifax and Nationwide use mortgage values rather than sales?
Just to reiterate my point, they have no scientific basis, hence should be taken a a pinch of salt.0 -
Also, dont the Halifax and Nationwide use mortgage values rather than sales?
Just to reiterate my point, they have no scientific basis, hence should be taken a a pinch of salt.
Wow prices should have dropped through the floor then 125% mortgages in 2007 compared to 60 - 90 % now
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards