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

carolt

Sorry, but that is contrary to what it claims on the bbc - I think I'll take my news from them rather than 'yahoo', thanks.

chucky

carolt wrote: »

Sorry, but that is contrary to what it claims on the bbc - I think I'll take my news from them rather than 'yahoo', thanks.

here's another source

For every 100 surveyors polled by RICS, 48 are seeing prices fall, while the same number are seeing prices hold stable, and just 5 are seeing an improvement in prices.

http://www.sharecast.com/cgi-bin/sharecast/story.cgi?story_id=2770577

i don't think the RICS report is anything set in stone. on a national average level house prices still have a between 5% to 10% to drop but there are areas where things will have bottomed out and a few that will have increases.

carolt

Ah, that well-known site - sharecast.

Hmm.

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

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.

I refer you back to your quote

carolt wrote:

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

The sentence is clearly discussing prices.
The sentence is saying that currently more surveyors expect price to keep falling but that the decline (in house prices, nothing to change saying the rate or percentage of decline)could stabalise in the coming months.

My interpretation is that they believe prices will continue to fall but in a couple of months could stabalise.

Simple English carolt

carolt

Yes 'the decline could stabilise in the coming months' is indeed simple English.

I read it as I explained before.

I see your point - but I disagree.

IveSeenTheLight

dopester wrote: »

Remembering and looking back at so many of your posts, you've really found your position whacked by events haven't you?

now now dopester, my faithful pet, you starting to Troll me again?

Try reading the whole post of mine you quoted, I was referring to the fact that we were 22% above the long term trend and that would have equated to approx 15% over three years.

I asked the question, what was better for the economy, it was posed to stimulate debate and discussion.

Since your trolling and quoting me, want to search for the post I said that due to economic circumstances, I could see and re-evaluate the drop that could be 25%? You must have it in the archive you have on me

As for me panicing, definately not.
It's not in my make-up to panic. I evaluate a situation and adjust my plans accordingly as event unfold.
Aren't you in the 70% average falls club, maybe it is you that is panicking that this dillusional figure will never be seen.

not going to fuel this attempt of a flaming spiral anymore, good day to you Mr dopester

inspector_monkfish

carolt wrote: »

Yes 'the decline could stabilise in the coming months' is indeed simple English.

I read it as I explained before.

I see your point - but I disagree.

why are you so cross all the time?
you really should chill out a bit.

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

Yes 'the decline could stabilise in the coming months' is indeed simple English.

I read it as I explained before.

I see your point - but I disagree.

I guess we must agree to disageree then.
I am keeping to the sentence, you are inferring a rate or percentage into the sentance that is not written.

The sentance written another way could be: -

"The house price decline could stabalise in the coming months"

If you look at the graphs that have been posted elsewhere, you could say that the rate of decline has already been pretty stable, so why state that it could become that in the coming months

StevieJ

carolt wrote: »

Sorry, but that is contrary to what it claims on the bbc - I think I'll take my news from them rather than 'yahoo', thanks.

I thought you Bears had been trying to discredit the BBC, inferring it was the governments mouthpiece :rotfl: just like Lloyds.

StevieJ

dopester wrote: »

Imagine there was only 10 transactions in every major town.
s.

Wait a minute we are talking about a reduction in sellers not just a reduction in transactions. Are you saying that it is better for the buyer if there is only 10 properties for sale as opposed to 100 the continual increase in enquiries is going to crystalise into sales at some point, if the sellers have not come back to market at that point, we are going to have a problem (at your favoured margin).