Richmond upon Thames

dopester

Richmond upon Thames
Annual Change This quarter: -21%
% change over 10 years: 85%

Southwark
Annual Change This quarter: -14%
% change over 10 years: 167%

I'm not sure if my maths is right here, but I think if Richmond upon Thames had not had a -21% annual change to this quarter... if it had been the same -14% as Southwark...

Then Richmond upon Thames
% change over 10 years: = 97.95% (or 98% to round it up).

That -7% extra fall in the year for Richmond upon Thames, causing the % change over 10 years to be down a further -12.95%.

I'm just trying to show how the 10 year figure may soon make some areas look like they didn't experience much HPI, as 1 year, 2 year, 3 years pass, with different levels of crash in different areas along the way, some areas lagging others. Although I'm not totally sure of my maths here, I'll risk someone more maths-savvy proving me wrong.

dopester

WhiteThierry wrote: »

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical/Q1_2009.pdf

amazing that some areas like richmond is 85% of the price of 10 years ago whereas southwark (a similarly priced area) is 167%. Any of you londoners have any idea?

Check this out. It helps highlight what I was trying to get at, about stats, and the danger of putting too much focus on what you think they show you.

Starting with the "data" the OP linked to, for 2009, for their surprise with 85% change over 10 years for Richmond.

Richmond upon Thames
Price in 2009 Q1: £320,367
Annual Change This quarter: -21%
% change over 10 years: 85%

Southwark
Price in 2009 Q1: £334,209
Annual Change This quarter: -14%
% change over 10 years: 167%

Then it is easy to draw conclusions based on that.

However... change the end of the original nationwide pdf hyperlink by one digit, and lets look at 2008.

Richmond upon Thames
Price in 2008 Q1: £406,846
Annual Change This quarter: 14%
% change over 10 years: 170%

Southwark
Price in 2008 Q1: £389,470
Annual Change This quarter 16%
% change over 10 years: 269%

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical/Q1_2008.pdf


Change the nationwide hyperlink again by one digit to see 2007 Q1

Richmond upon Thames
Price in 2007 Q1: £356,354
Annual Change This quarter: 11%
% change over 10 years: 202%

Southwark
Price in 2007 Q1: £389,470
Annual Change This quarter 21%
% change over 10 years: 283%

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical/Q1_2007.pdf

Going back to Q1 2006.. the Nationwide's data gets a bit more generalised.. but hope you get the point I was trying to make about statistics.

Especially basing decisions on % change over 10 years, when the values have been very changeable on the way up, and different falls over a period of one or 2 years, really slants the 10 year % view.

You really ought to look at it in a few different ways, to determine values and worth and gains and losses.

dopester

Generali wrote: »

Southwark is a lot nicer than it was 10 years ago, Richmond is much the same as it was.

Is that the best you could come up with?

As you were like in the City in finance I expected you to come up with the danger of those stats, and how they can be misinterpreted.

Not having a go at you. It just makes me laugh given my own struggle with maths since childhood.

dopester

So there it is. A bit more reality. Mix in the fact that Southwark had an extra boost of 21% compared to Richmond upon Thames 11% in 2006.

Then you'd have to look at the difference in % change between 1997 and 1998, and the years up to 2009. I'd be surprised if both areas hadn't enjoyed very similar growth to peak.

Stats. The maths-heads love em but they often ignore dangers behind them.

Purchase an item at £100. See the value treble to £300 (200% capital gain) and you are laughing yes? Can't really be hard-hit with losses from that position.

Changes of economic circumstances.. you item loses 50% of it's value. Suddenly it is worth only £150. Only a 50% capital gain.

What is that? You took a loan out on the item to purchase another similar item at £400 ? Leverage. Kicks you in.

dopester

TUC document 2007. (Not to the peak in 2008 as their data only goes to 1997 to 2006, and we know Richmond Upon Thames rose a further 11% to Q1 2007 and 14% to Q1 2008)

Richmond upon Thames
1997 median pay: £19,622
2006 median pay: £29,730
% pay increase: 51.5%

1997 median house price: £135,000
2006 median house price: £330,000
% price increase: 144%
how much faster house prices go up than pay: 2.8

That isn't to the 2008 Richmond Upon Thames peak either.

Values "only" rose 2.8 times faster than pay, because the pay increases for Richmond Upon Thames were calculated quite highly compared to other areas (51.5%.... compared to Hammersmith and Fulham which still saw spectacular house price value gains despite only a 23.4% pay increase (through 1997 to 2006).

Have I ever mentioned the downwards pressure on pay-levels for fancy Richmond-Upon-Thames, the City, the surrounding suburbs, and all around the country? Or the rising unemployment and so on.

Wookster

Generali wrote: »

Southwark is a lot nicer than it was 10 years ago, Richmond is much the same as it was.

Richmond has always been very expensive being a leafy green, big houses, near the river area.

Southwark was a seriously dodgy area. Now its only a slightly dodgy area, located very close to the city/ west end.

sianebu

Richmond is a lovely area ...somewhere like that will go for whatever someone wanting to live there is willing to pay

dopester

sianebu wrote: »

Richmond is a lovely area ...somewhere like that will go for whatever someone wanting to live there is willing to pay

Willing maybe. Able to pay at the values owners believe their homes to be worth.

Ever more people are not able to, via savings of mortgage financing, and more reluctant to take on big mortgages or use savings because of job uncertainties.

The smart are selling, and accepting lower prices to do so.

dopester

WhiteThierry wrote: »

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical/Q1_2009.pdf

amazing that some areas like richmond is 85% of the price of 10 years ago whereas southwark (a similarly priced area) is 167%. Any of you londoners have any idea?

Yes. Wookster and co have nailed it.

Richmond Upon Thames didn't treble in value from 1997. No wonder I'm almost alone in my projections for the severity of the crash.

Wookster wrote: »

Richmond has always been very expensive being a leafy green, big houses, near the river area.

Southwark was a seriously dodgy area. Now its only a slightly dodgy area, located very close to the city/ west end.

olly300

dopester wrote: »

TUC document 2007. (Not to the peak in 2008 as their data only goes to 1997 to 2006, and we know Richmond Upon Thames rose a further 11% to Q1 2007 and 14% to Q1 2008)



That isn't to the 2008 Richmond Upon Thames peak either.

Values "only" rose 2.8 times faster than pay, because the pay increases for Richmond Upon Thames were calculated quite highly compared to other areas (51.5%.... compared to Hammersmith and Fulham which still saw spectacular house price value gains despite only a 23.4% pay increase (through 1997 to 2006).

Have I ever mentioned the downwards pressure on pay-levels for fancy Richmond-Upon-Thames, the City, the surrounding suburbs, and all around the country? Or the rising unemployment and so on.

Where the pay levels actually for people working in the borough or for households in the borough?

This is really important as people in London tend to work in a different borough or area from where they live.

The only pay surveys I've seen have involved people working in the borough.