Halifax -1.9% MoM, -17.5% YoY -21.3% from peak.

Really2

Thankfully the Halifax publish what they do.

http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/media/word/07_06_07HPImethodology.doc


Looks like they need 15,000 to get accuracy of which around 13,500 are usable after scrubbing anomalies.

So 1000-1500 would not be good by the looks of it Sir H.

We will leave such numbers for opinion poles shall we.;)

Sir_Humphrey

Really2 wrote: »

Thankfully the Halifax publish what they do.

http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/media/word/07_06_07HPImethodology.doc


Looks like they need 15,000 to get accuracy of which around 13,500 are usable after scrubbing anomalies.

So 1000-1500 would not be good by the looks of it Sir H.

We will leave such numbers for opinion poles shall we.;)

The 13500 is what they get, not what they need. I guessed earlier that their sample was around 10000, (as I said opinion polls tend to be about 1100). Still, if you want to save me posting things that demonstrate my point, then allez-y SVP.

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The 13500 is what they get, not what they need. I guessed earlier that their sample was around 10000, (as I said opinion polls tend to be about 1100). Still, if you want to save me posting things that demonstrate my point, then allez-y SVP.

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

As a rule of thumb, provided they sell more than about 1000-1500 new mortgages a month, sample sizes should not be an issue. (Happy to be corrected by any professional statisticians here).

:rotfl:

Why don't they use 1000 Sir H?

It would save a lot of time.

I think It was I who said through the whole of this the larger the sample the more acurate not you Sir H.

You don't like being in the wrong do you Sir H?

Sir_Humphrey

Really2 wrote: »

:rotfl:

Why don't they use 1000 Sir H?

It would save a lot of time.

I think It was I who said through the whole of this the larger the sample the more acurate not you Sir H.

You don't like being in the wrong do you Sir H?

13500 is more accurate than 1000 as I have said all along, but only a by a very little bit. Since there is no extra cost in getting the data since they collect it anyway, that is why they use the larger figure. If they were a third party they would not bother. Now go and make a fool of yourself elsewhere.

ad44downey

Dan: wrote: »

Do you know what downey, I have never read one constructive post from you. I suspect this is because you are too thick to understand basic economics. Out of ALL the regular members, your the only one where I have no idea on what your personal views are of the current status of the economny or house prices - all you seem to manage are ridiculous sound bites.

You seem to enjoy targeting me with your silly 'put downs' probarly because you know that I am stupid enough to bite back - well, i've had enough of being brought down to your level. Do you really think this is what people want to read? We are not doing ourselves any favours.

I've been PM'ed in the past advising me to stick you on ignore, and I think they are probabrly right - so there you have it - congratulations at being the first on my ignore list.

You can now go away and haunt someone else for a change.

It looks like I hit a raw nerve here. haha. Apologies to any other caravan dweller for any offence caused..

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

13500 is more accurate than 1000 .

Thank you, at last it was not that hard was it.:)

Fool? me... i am not the one posting about should they lose their job in the Public Sector then posting on here all day.;)
Or how many rich people I went to Oxford with.;)

Sir_Humphrey

Really2 wrote: »

Thank you at last it was not that hard was it.:)

Fool? me... i am not the one posting about should they lose their job in the Public Sector then posting on here all day.;)
Or how many rich people I went to Oxford with.;)

It is easy for me to concede a point I never made. If you understood stats, perhaps you could have gone to Oxford and got a nice job in the public sector too.

Toodle pip!

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

It is easy for me to concede a point I never made. If you understood stats, perhaps you could have gone to Oxford and got a nice job in the public sector too.

Toodle pip!

Thanks my £1600 tax this month is well spent.:rolleyes:

JonnyBravo

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

It is easy for me to concede a point I never made. If you understood stats, perhaps you could have gone to Oxford and got a nice job in the public sector too.

Quite a gift your ability to make friends eh Sir H?

So tell me more about this "nice job in the public sector" then....

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

£27k is more than I earn.

Oh I see. Not that nice then.
I guess sparkler safety isn't one of the better paying depts then eh? :cool:

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Toodle pip!

See ya!

stephen163

Everyone trying to get their insults in before the weekend shut down?