House prices FALL -0.3% MoM - Land Registry

chewmylegoff

thegibdog wrote: »

I think this just demonstrates the volatility of the figures, Rochdale had the highest monthly falls for the previous two months - over 5% in both February and March.

with only 30,000 properties changing hands each month nationwide, it is likely that the number of sales in the area defined as rochdale isn't large enough to give statistically reliable data.

200,000 people in rochdale borough according to google, so approx 0.33% of the national population.

30,000 x 0.0033 = 100 sales per month expected on average.

all you would need would be one abnormally high value transaction - or the lack thereof - (for illustrative purposes, say a £1 million transaction when the average price was £100,000) to materially skew the average.

westv

Remembering, of course, that Land Registery figures are behind (by a few months?) the other indices.

chucky

chewmylegoff wrote: »

with only 30,000 properties changing hands each month nationwide, it is likely that the number of sales in the area defined as rochdale isn't large enough to give statistically reliable data.

the volumes would be ok if the index was -2.9% though?

chewmylegoff

chucky wrote: »

the volumes would be ok if the index was -2.9% though?

the quarterly trend would be more reliable.

this would be -5%, -5%, +8% so a net cumulative fall of -2.5%. how convenient :rolleyes:;)

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

with only 30,000 properties changing hands each month nationwide, it is likely that the number of sales in the area defined as rochdale isn't large enough to give statistically reliable data.

200,000 people in rochdale borough according to google, so approx 0.33% of the national population.

30,000 x 0.0033 = 100 sales per month expected on average.

all you would need would be one abnormally high value transaction - or the lack thereof - (for illustrative purposes, say a £1 million transaction when the average price was £100,000) to materially skew the average.

LR figures only compare like-with-like. They compare the house the last time it sold with the same house this time it sold. The skew you state is impossible unless houses at different price points are changing prices at vastly different rates (unusual but not impossible).

As Nationwide measure prices at approval whereas the LR measure at completion (or slightly afterwards) this figure should compared with the Haliwide from February or perhaps March.

Also, to make the point again, MoM figures are basically noise. YoY is -16.2%. Also, the drop in recorded sales levels is incredible - down to 25k nationally and fewer than 3,000 in London! House prices will not rise in a sustained fashion until completion levels hit around 70,000.

These aren't green shoots for the housing market. Quite the reverse despite what Haliwide are saying unless volumes have trebled in the past 3 months.

chucky

Generali wrote: »

LR figures only compare like-with-like. They compare the house the last time it sold with the same house this time it sold. The skew you state is impossible unless houses at different price points are changing prices at vastly different rates (unusual but not impossible).

As Nationwide measure prices at approval whereas the LR measure at completion (or slightly afterwards) this figure should compared with the Haliwide from February or perhaps March.

Also, to make the point again, MoM figures are basically noise. YoY is -16.2%. Also, the drop in recorded sales levels is incredible - down to 25k nationally and fewer than 3,000 in London! House prices will not rise in a sustained fashion until completion levels hit around 70,000.

These aren't green shoots for the housing market. Quite the reverse despite what Haliwide are saying unless volumes have trebled in the past 3 months.

if there are low volumes when prices are not far off 0% and even less when they're in negative numbers like -2% per month. surely the increased volumes statistics are "more" reliable?

i'm not saying there's a recovery either. but both sets of numbers are as useless as each other.

Generali

chucky wrote: »

if there are low volumes when prices are not far off 0% and even less when they're in negative numbers like -2% per month. surely the increased volumes statistics are "more" reliable?

i'm not saying there's a recovery either. but both sets of numbers are as useless as each other.

Yup, I agree with that.

Frankly, housing market about flat right now following big falls feels about right. Where we go from here is interesting - interest rates have to rise at some point as they can't stay at record lows forever. However, presumably the economy will rebound at some point too.

My feeling is that house prices have some way to go down yet as there seems to be a link between HPs and unemployment and unemployment will increase for a while yet as it is a notoriously lagging indicator (that is to say when GDP starts to drop, unemployment doesn't rise for a bit and conversely when GDP rises it takes a while (18 months typically in the UK) for unemployment to fall).

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

the drop in recorded sales levels is incredible - down to 25k nationally and fewer than 3,000 in London! House prices will not rise in a sustained fashion until completion levels hit around 70,000.

Sales at the end of 07 was approx 70,000.
Maybe it does not need to be this high to see price rises.
You will likely see this in the LR sats in the coming months

What you are forgetting to consider is the amount of properties for sale.
If there are 70,000 sales out of say 210,000 properties available the ratio is 1:3
If buyers was down to 25,000 and there were less properties available i.e. 75,000, then the same competative ratio could be considered

You've correctly pointed out demand is down, but what about supply?

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Sales at the end of 07 was approx 70,000.
Maybe it does not need to be this high to see price rises.
You will likely see this in the LR sats in the coming months

What you are forgetting to consider is the amount of properties for sale.
If there are 70,000 sales out of say 210,000 properties available the ratio is 1:3
If buyers was down to 25,000 and there were less properties available i.e. 75,000, then the same competative ratio could be considered

You've correctly pointed out demand is down, but what about supply?

Supply is down as economic theory would predict - falling prices often cause a fall in supply.

Generally speaking, 70k completions a month are required for prices to rise. It's a correlation - you can argue the toss about whether it's a cancer causes smoking or smoking causes cancer statistic but this can be shown AIUI.

StevieJ

westv wrote: »

Remembering, of course, that Land Registery figures are behind (by a few months?) the other indices.

No Spring bounce yet then