NATIONWIDE - UK house prices fall 0.4 pct mm in April

Really2

skap7309 wrote: »

Did anyone anyway?

Your right some were more than that:)

How about brit1234's signature
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/member.html?u=267923
"50%+ Falls in House Prices by Christmas 2009"

dazeruk

mitchaa wrote: »

I think you all agreed that we would be down around 40% by xmas if i am not mistaken.

There were hundreds of threads on here stating that 2009 is going to be far worse than 2008 due to the recession, debt and increasing unemployment.

That has simply not happened in the 4mths so far. Nationwide state house prices have fallen less than 1% so far this year in the 4 months up until now.

Where's Dopester, Brit1234, Carol, NDG, even Generali who predicted that things were going to get a whole lot worse in 2009. There are some very quiet bears, ad44downey still with his head in the sand concentrating on 1 misleading quote;)

Aren't house prices a lagging indicator of what is happening in the ecomony? The falls so far this year being due to economic factors towards the latter part of last year. If things get worse, especially regarding employment, then we'll not be seeing the effect for a while. People can't buy houses with money they don't have, on expectations of a recovery. I think we still have falls to come.

Really2

dazeruk wrote: »

Aren't house prices a lagging indicator of what is happening in the ecomony? The falls so far this year being due to economic factors towards the latter part of last year.

????
Credit crunch started way before last year.

Dan:_4

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Love it. So last month, we were allowed to use spring adjusted figures, as house prices rose on those figures.

This month, were not allowed to and have to ignore the adjusted figure for spring.

I'd rather just focus on the numbers given. Last month, it was given that house prices had gone up, and the bears accepted it. There was even mention on the thread about how we had accepted that. So why can this not be the same this month?

Every graph that comes out is going to show a fall of 0.4%, so for you lot to be arguing that actually it's a rise, is pretty poor.

All I can say is, to all of us, this is neither here nor there. Not a bear glory, and not a bull glory. 0.4& means nothing really and I was expecting it to be higher personally.

So, bearing that in mind, could we concentrate on the true figures given by the nationwide, as they have always reported them? Instead of trying to change things to suit?

The true figure from Nationwide is that the average house price now costs £151,861 - this up up from £150,900 last month.

StevieJ

dazeruk wrote: »

Aren't house prices a lagging indicator of what is happening in the ecomony? The falls so far this year being due to economic factors towards the latter part of last year. If things get worse, especially regarding employment, then we'll not be seeing the effect for a while. People can't buy houses with money they don't have, on expectations of a recovery. I think we still have falls to come.

No, the recession was caused by a credit crunch that hit housing liquidity first, FTBers could not get mortgages.

Graham_Devon

Dan: wrote: »

The true figure from Nationwide is that the average house price now costs £151,861 - this up up from £150,900 last month.

Okey doke. Fair enough.

I just cannot see the point in using seasonally adjusted one month to prove a point, then ignoring it the next month, to also prove a point.

That is, as someone else stated, utter desperation to spin the actual figure that we have all been following since it started to fall. It won't be shown on graphs either, won't be shown on land registry.

Like I say, the 0.4%, it's neither here nor there, but this is probably the most desperate of arguments I have seen on here up to now regarding house prices.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Love it. So last month, we were allowed to use spring adjusted figures, as house prices rose on those figures.

This month, were not allowed to and have to ignore the adjusted figure for spring.

I'd rather just focus on the numbers given. Last month, it was given that house prices had gone up, and the bears accepted it. There was even mention on the thread about how we had accepted that. So why can this not be the same this month?

It is

According to Nationwide: -

February = £147,746
March = £150,946
April = £151,861

Therefore according to Nationwide, prices have risen two consecutive months



Therefore last month (if it wasn't seasonally adjusted) the rise would have been reported as a 2.2% rise instead of 0.9%

The seasonal adjustment in my opinion needs to be adjusted as it would appear they are still working on a rising market philosophy hence this months report saying the figures were not as high as they had thought they would be.
In a falling market, were they really expecting a rise higher than 0.6%.
Simply speaking it would look like they were expeting a 1% rise in house prices for the month

chucky

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

According to Nationwide: -

February = £147,746
March = £150,946
April = £151,861

that means that I've made £16,000 in 3 months :rotfl:

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It is

According to Nationwide: -

February = £147,746
March = £150,946
April = £151,861

Therefore according to Nationwide, prices have risen two consecutive months



Therefore last month (if it wasn't seasonally adjusted) the rise would have been reported as a 2.2% rise instead of 0.9%

The seasonal adjustment in my opinion needs to be adjusted as it would appear they are still working on a rising market philosophy hence this months report saying the figures were not as high as they had thought they would be.
In a falling market, were they really expecting a rise higher than 0.6%.
Simply speaking it would look like they were expeting a 1% rise in house prices for the month

Oh I seeeee

So mitchaa, who doesn't use those figures you posted above there, in his signature, because that wouldnt prove his point is now also using those figures to proclaim a rise.

Depends which set of figures works each month, I guess?

dazeruk

StevieJ wrote: »

No, the recession was caused by a credit crunch that hit housing liquidity first, FTBers could not get mortgages.

So house prices started falling in 2007 due to housing liquidity problems. Is the economic climate now better or worse? From what I've seen I would say worse. More business have folded and unemployment rising. How can house prices turn around in those conditions? Surely the currently worsing conditions can only add to that early crisis?