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!
London house prices already exceed 'peak' of 2007
Comments
-
but that price is what people are pricing their streets with.Sir_Humphrey wrote: »Data skew on very limited turnover.
I look at my chosen areas like a hawk and they are still below 2007 prices. Full stop.
with limited turnover - does that mean they're cheaper now or is that not the current market rate?
so let me get this right - you walk into an estate agent and tell him you're going to offer £100k less because in July 2007 volumes were higher than now. the market rate doesn't matter because of volumes. :rolleyes:
you've got to have a better argument than that0 -
bernard_shaw wrote: »pedantry
Well it seems I was mistaken, I thought they did mix adjust. Fair enough.
Still, my point about mansions not skewing stands, as they exclude sales of over one million.
And my point about volume being greater than last year stands, as it's up 20%, and I didn't see anyone complaining that low volumes were skewing the prices downwards then.
There was much celebration amongst some when the same index, using the same methodology, showed prices falling off a cliff this time last year on far lower volumes.
So arguing the methodology now seems somewhat futile.“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 -
Phew,
Finally this thread has started to have discussion on the numbers instead of blind belief in them.
Maybe it's time to have some sort of non VI index? Allow 3rd party to mull over the figures and produce a report on it.0 -
but that price is what people are pricing their streets with.
They are priced by EAs according to their local area. Aggregate London figures mask localised markets as any fule no.with limited turnover - does that mean their cheaper now or is that the market rate?
so let me get this right - you walk into an estate agent and tell him you're going to offer £100k less because in July 2007 volumes were higher than now. the market rate doesn't matter because of volumes. :rolleyes:
you've got to have a better argument than that
Prices are lower than peak - any bounce this year has been very modest if it has happened at all - 5% tops after a fall of about 15-20% to trough. I could not say for sure the situation with actual houses as these are a different part of the market. The most noticeable thing is that there is very, very little on the market.
With the lowest IRs since the creation of the BoE and money printing, only a rally of 5% tops in outer London. This does not suggest that the underlying fundamentals are very strong!
EDIT: For other hard-of-thinking Bulls, what would the annualised rise in HPs have been before the credit crunch had IRs been 0.5%? 30% annual? 40% annual?Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. J. K. Galbraith0 -
but the estate agents are led/guided by sold prices and the demand.Sir_Humphrey wrote: »They are priced by EAs according to their local area. Aggregate London figures mask localised markets as any fule no.
the sold prices are from the Land Registry - you've said that "Data skew on very limited turnover."
the volumes don't matter to EA's or even sellers - they go by sold prices.
you not dense enough to dismiss sold prices because of volume.
no argument hereSir_Humphrey wrote: »Prices are lower than peak - any bounce this year has been very modest if it has happened at all - 5% tops after a fall of about 15-20% to trough. I could not say for sure the situation with actual houses as these are a different part of the market. The most noticeable thing is that there is very, very little on the market.
With the lowest IRs since the creation of the BoE and money printing, only a rally of 5% tops in outer London. This does not suggest that the underlying fundamentals are very strong!0 -
but the estate agents are led/guided by sold prices and the demand.
the sold prices are from the Land Registry - you've said that "Data skew on very limited turnover."
I have neither the time nor inclination to be giving out remedial stats classes today. Sorry.Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. J. K. Galbraith0 -
maybe i should have explained it in crayon for you :rolleyes:Sir_Humphrey wrote: »I have neither the time nor inclination to be giving out remedial stats classes today. Sorry.
these characters on here are becoming more and more desperate - i've heard it all now.
they are going to tell a seller that they are offering £100k less because sales volumes are not high..
good luck with that :eek:0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »
So arguing the methodology now seems somewhat futile.
So, you start arguing the methodology, and when your key assumption is shown wrong, you attempt to curtail the argument. Why's that then?0 -
Phew,
Finally this thread has started to have discussion on the numbers instead of blind belief in them.
Maybe it's time to have some sort of non VI index? Allow 3rd party to mull over the figures and produce a report on it.
Agreed, people don't always tell the truth, businesses will hide the truth if it benefits their position - when there's billions of pounds at stake, both people and businesses would lie for England.
Only an independant company with no vested interest, could be taken seriously. The figures I read on here aren't worth the electrons moved in order to display the numbers.
It would be incredibly easy and relatively cheap to collate this data in a single centralised database, but clearly these businesses have something to hide - so it will never happen.
The Land Registry is not an indication of the real figures, it's like for like only and therefore flawed.0 -
bernard_shaw wrote: »So, you start arguing the methodology, and when your key assumption is shown wrong, you attempt to curtail the argument. Why's that then?
Others queried the numbers, not me. I thought it was mix adjusted, it isn't, I've acknowleded I was wrong. But it's hardly my key assumption.
My key assumption is that last year, on lower volumes, with less lending available for FTB's, nobody was querying the numbers when the prices were falling. Yet now that volumes are rising, people want to question the stats? :rolleyes:
Sorry, but if they were accurate on lower transaction levels than today when prices were falling, then why are they innacurate on increased volumes when prices are rising?
I have yet to see any of you answer this.
Regardless, I have just realised that the quarterly series will be out soon enough, and it does break down price and volume by property type, so we'll know beyond doubt if the large detached houses have been masking losses in small flats or terraces.“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
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards