More surveyors expect prices to keep falling than rise - RICS survey

carolt

That's what the article - minus the spinning headline, actually said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8044527.stm

The Rics survey found that more surveyors expected prices to keep falling than rise in general, but that the decline could stabilise in the coming months.



"Transactions remain at very low levels, and we are unlikely to see significant improvements while money remains in short supply and the employment picture is uncertain," said Rics spokesman Jeremy Leaf.

whathavewedone

BUT THAT THE DECLINE COULD STABILISE IN THE COMING MONTHS

That's what's important about the headline

Not even the most bullish bull on here sees prices rising/stabilising as of right now. Some people have talked about how we might be close to the bottom but I don't believe that anyone seriously believes that we are at the bottom.

Why couldn't you just post your opinion on the thread in question? That's meant to be the idea...

treliac

And then interest rates will start to rise, killing the market stone dead!

carolt

Decline stabilising does NOT equal falls stopping, it just means not going down any faster.

Let alone going up.

Why do people have to post lies?

inspector_monkfish

already posted here....

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1682781

carolt

You missed my point - I felt your thread title was misleading - hence mine.

ad9898_3

carolt wrote: »

Why do people have to post lies?

VI just about sums it up, RICS depends on a thriving housing market, if there is any chance of a green shoot, you can trust the government/EA's/RICS....etc... to turn that green shoot into a rain forest over night.

If taxes and unemployment were heading down, interest rates weren't heading up in the future, then I could see the housing market stablising, this is just not happening, so where is the money going to come from ?

You can't even call this a dead cat bounce because prices are still falling and will be lower by year end then they are now.

inspector_monkfish

carolt wrote: »

You missed my point - I felt your thread title was misleading - hence mine.

it was just the article headline

carolt

Yes - and a misleading one. Not claiming you were intending to mislead - but the person who wrote that headline certainly did intend exactly that, which is why I posted my own.

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

Decline stabilising does NOT equal falls stopping, it just means not going down any faster.

Let alone going up.

Why do people have to post lies?

Now who's spinning?

The article you linked does not refer to the rate of decline stabalising as you infer above, but that the house price decline could stabalise.

If the house price decline stabalises, then that would indicate the bottom is near and DOES equal falls stopping

carolt

No - a stabilised decline = a decline that is flat, not a stable situation. You are confusing the two.

If prices fall at say 2% a month, every month, that is a stable decline.

If they fall at 2%, then 3%, then 4% etc, that is a worsening decline.

It does not say house prices will stabilise - thar is an entirely different thing.

I refer you to my quote in the OP.