Nationwide: prices down 1.4% in October, down 14.6% since last year

IveSeenTheLight

mitchaa wrote: »

Try a little harder, you aint winning until my signature goes into the negative, long way to go yet

Maybe you should change your signature to Registers of Scotland results

Currently you have: -

Q1 2007 = £139,063
Q3 2008 = £162,120

This is a 16.58% HPI

The Registers of Scotland agency shows different figures, sorry:rolleyes:

Jan 2007 = £148,488
Aug 2008 = £172,616

This is only a 16.25% HPI

Just to keep everything in perspective, it does show between July and August a drop of 6.54% (£184,687 down to £172,616)

chucky

please don't quote these numbers or even any positive numbers!!!!

!!!!!! and his HPC Ghetto will call you a liar and you've manipulated the figures!!!

IveSeenTheLight

chucky wrote: »

please don't quote these numbers or even any positive numbers!!!!

!!!!!! and his HPC Ghetto will call you a liar and you've manipulated the figures!!!

As always, I get figurs from facts I can link.
If they are disputed, then I can back them up, but just in advance, they are from here
http://www.ros.gov.uk/productsandservices/lpd_stats.html

MrDT

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

As always, I get figurs from facts I can link.
If they are disputed, then I can back them up, but just in advance, they are from here
http://www.ros.gov.uk/productsandservices/lpd_stats.html

So is this essentially the Scottish equivalent to the Land Registry index? Same omissions that skew things in favour of HPI? Same kind of lag?

Cannon_Fodder

Approx 200 £1M+ properties in Scotland on Rightmove as we speak...these are left out of ROS stats - to avoid distorting the stats!

"produced to National Statistics standards" - what would London/SE look like for affordability if all the £1M properties were excluded?

A bit like the man from Kirkcaldy leaving the expensive stuff off the balance sheet...

IveSeenTheLight

Sheesh, prices over £1 million is not exactly average house territory now is it?
Why don't you guys go out and shows us an absolute correct link for house prices, average wages, unemployment etc etc etc

It'll be in the papers monday, FTB wants £1million pound pad on £10k per year

Cannon_Fodder

I didn't realise we were restricting ourselves to average FTB discussion. I thought we were talking stats, accuracy, likely direction etc...

If, as described for Aberdeen, 27 properties are sold at an "average" of £176K...

Then 1x £1M property is sold. The average SHOULD become 1/28th of a million higher...that's £35,700 pounds extra that should be reflected on the index...unless you leave it out of the stats...

It would be great for Mitchaa's nominal profit(!)...not so great for affordability when trying to attract employers/staff/investment, nor great for the overall accuracy of stats - by their very nature as prices go up, more properties will hit £1M. A greater proportion of total sales gets left out of stats as time passes.

Until.

A crash hits.

Then a couple of £990,000 sales APPEAR in the stats for the first time, raising the AVERAGE quite substantially, because they NEVER appeared at £1,000,000 on the way up, a couple of years earlier.

That is called SKEWing the stats.

Might not matter too much if only 2 houses a year involved. A couple of hundred is statistically relevant imo.

dopester

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

"Nationwide...Unreliable data if only 7% of the market"

That is VERY ironic, Mitchaa. LOL.

Just check your signature again... whose figures are you basing your "profit during this HPC" on...

You're in good form in many of your posts today.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

No it doesn't, it means the reported figures can be inaccurate.

If this month, most of those sold are around £100k then the figure is lower.
If next month there is a higher percentage of £200k properties the reported figures go up.
This doesn't mean that the average for the area is going up or down, but with so small figures, it could be reporting different types of property sold from month to month.

Another way

If you poll 1 guy on who is going to win the American election you might get 100% result for democratics
Poll a different guy the next month and you could get 100% republican
It's not a massive swing from one side to the other, its that they are polling different types of voters.

Any poll / statistic, is more accurate by higher numbers.
Lower numbers and they could lead to inaccuracies.

The Nationwide 'mix adjust' their figures in an attempt to compare like-with-like each month. That the figures are similar to other house prices surveys implies that either they all make the same mistakes each month or that they are all pretty accurate.

I agree that a smaller sample means a less accurate outcome potentially.

dopester

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Lower numbers and they could lead to inaccuracies.

Geez ISTL... don't you understand how markets work?

I doubt there were major number of sales to account for the huge HPI you love back in 2006 and 2007. This is why I have been stressing to you that your Aberdeen market that saw huge HPI not long ago, which up to now both you and Mitchaa have been happy to accept Nationwide's stats about, is volatile to the same effects on the way down.

for prices of assets to fall, it takes only one seller and one buyer who agree that the former value of an asset was too high. If no other bids are competing with that buyer's, then the value of the asset falls, and it falls for everyone who owns it. If a million other people own it, then their net worth goes down even though they did nothing.

Two investors made it happen by transacting, and the rest of the investors made it happen by choosing not to disagree with their price. Financial values can disappear through a decrease in prices for any type of investment asset, including bonds, stocks and land.