NATIONWIDE - UK house prices fall 0.4 pct mm in April

Graham_Devon

Dan: wrote: »

If your talking about my signature, you will notice it IS those figures I have used.

Why would I be talking your figures, when clearly, I say mitcha?

Jeez, you can change anything!!!

stephen163

There is a lot of statistical jiggery pokery involved. It's not a straight average like the rightmove asking price or land registry is. It is based on a hypothetical average house. Basically, I think what they do is split a house up into its constituent parts (garden, bedrooms, kitchen, drive, area etc.,...) and attach a certain value to each little bit of it. They then work out what the average house consists of (maybe 3.76 bedrooms, a garden of 50 square feet, 0.12 drives), and multiply out by the value they got for each little bit. That's my take on it anyway, could be completely wrong!

Dan:_4

stephen163 wrote: »

. You can't pick and choose though - if people were using seasonally adjusted figues in the dark winter months, they can't now turn to the raw data. If they do, and boast about increases now, I can pluck the raw data for the winter months and soon prove that they lost more there than the figures they are trying to use suggest.

.

People on this forum do just that, but it now appears they don't like it unless it's in their favour.

ukcarper

stephen163 wrote: »

There is a lot of statistical jiggery pokery involved. It's not a straight average like the rightmove asking price or land registry is. It is based on a hypothetical average house. Basically, I think what they do is split a house up into its constituent parts (garden, bedrooms, kitchen, drive, area etc.,...) and attach a certain value to each little bit of it. They then work out what the average house consists of (maybe 3.76 bedrooms, a garden of 50 square feet, 0.12 drives), and multiply out by the value they got for each little bit. That's my take on it anyway, could be completely wrong!

Very complicated them but if it applies to what they think is an average house rather the average house price it is more useful.

ruggedtoast

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?

Hear hear (or possibly here, here, I've never been sure). A lot of people seem to have some ideological need to believe prices are going up again, irrespective of whether that benefits them (which it usually doesnt).

We're in a bad recession, unemployment is rising, public and consumer debt is very high, there is weak demand globally, credit is tight and housing is still overvalued while the pool of people who can meet asking prices declines.

I sincerely hope none of the uber bulls here are dabbling in the markets, they'll get wiped out making such sentimental decisions.

Prices are still going down and will take a long while before such an asset bubble will be reinflated, if ever. Get over it and find some other commodity to ramp. Sugar perhaps, lots of people sitting at home watching Jeremy Kyle over a cuppa right now!

Really2

Intrestingly they are £1160 more than Jan 09

No nominal fall at all this year so far but a nominal gain of 0.7% in the first 4 months of the year.

Really2

ukcarper wrote: »

Very complicated them but if it applies to what they think is an average house rather the average house price it is more useful.

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/method_qs.htm

The above is their methodology

JayScottGreenspan

Too bloody right ruggedtoast.

IMO house prices will keep falling, although the pace of falls has to let up - the -2% per month falls we've seen just weren't sustainable. Annual falls will slowly nudge down to -10%, then -5%. Probably from 2012 we'll have stagnation for a few years.

My guess for the bottom:
Halifax £143,000
Nationwide £138,000
Land Reg £133,000

Unemployment's heading for three million and there are still a lot of £££s to be shed.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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?

Mitchaaa doesn't use that figures in his signature, because he was hounded about the acurate reports regarding house prices in Aberdeen.
He bought in early 2007 and therefore his signature is there for everyone who slated him and showing that in principle, the Aberdeen market is still higher than he bought in early 2007.

But lets not bring up the Aberdeen focus again

The discussion regarding mitchaa's property and this thread are completely different

ruggedtoast

Really2 wrote: »

Intrestingly they are £1160 more than Jan 09

No nominal fall at all this year so far but a nominal gain of 0.7% in the first 4 months of the year.

If I seriously believed there was anyone out there who had bought a flat for £100,000 in Jan and sold it for a £700 profit in April this would have some credence.