Halifax +2.6 % MoM

adr0ck

ad9898 wrote: »

Thanks for that Bailey, the explanations of each phase are fascinating, and seem to apply directly to the housing market we are currently seeing, in fact it's unnerving to see how accurate it is playing out as we speak. It seems at this time we are heading for the 'return to normal phase'. Seeing how the graph has been so accurate so far, it will be interesting to how the next few years pan out.

the way i'm reading the graph is we are returning to the mean after the despair

the reason for this is average house prices seem to be going back up towards the trend line after being slightly below it at the beginning of the year

above from nationwide index (don't know how to post graphs)

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical/May_2009.pdf

or does the mean have nothing to do witht he trend?

chucky

adr0ck wrote: »

the way i'm reading the graph is we are returning to the mean after the despair

the x-axis indicating Time doesn't tell us anything.
it could start in 1975, 1992 or even 2012.

it's an interesting graph but it fits a number of universal and different viewpoints that you wouldn't want to read too much from.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

the x-axis indicating Time doesn't tell us anything.
it could start in 1975, 1992 or even 2012.

it's an interesting graph but it fits a number of universal and different viewpoints that you wouldn't want to read too much from.

Chucky, could you please inform us how it could possibly indicate time?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Chucky, could you please inform us how it could possibly indicate time?

i find the graph interesting Graham - but it's not for me.
other people like it, i don't have a problem with it.

my understanding is that if it if it fits the current cycle (boom to crash to retirn to mean) you would have a start date in the Stealth Phase and and an end date at the Return to Mean.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

i find the graph interesting Graham - but it's not for me.
other people like it, i don't have a problem with it.

my understanding is that if it if it fits the current cycle (boom to crash to retirn to mean) you would have a start date in the Stealth Phase and and an end date at the Return to Mean.

So although you keep saying it really doesnt count as it has no timeline, you can't tell me how it could possibly have a timeline?

As you know, it can't possibly have a timeline. If it did, it would tell us all exactly when the bust would start and exactly the date it would stop.

All the graph is doing is showing how a boom and bust pans out based on history.

A lot of us can see we are following it pretty precisely.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So although you keep saying it really doesnt count as it has no timeline, you can't tell me how it could possibly have a timeline?

As you know, it can't possibly have a timeline. If it did, it would tell us all exactly when the bust would start and exactly the date it would stop.

that's exactly my point - if it can't have a time line how do you know when it started 1975, 1982, 1992 or 2001?

you see it and many others do to, i don't.
if you feel it fits your viewpoint. it's not a problem at all.
it's just not for me. i'm allowed to have a different opinion on it.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All the graph is doing is showing how a boom and bust pans out based on history.

this raises another question i have about the graph.
a micro boom (current cycles) and bust cycle or a macro boom (a couple or more cycles) and bust cycles?

not trying to be difficult Graham - i want to understand why other posters see it as what is happening.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So although you keep saying it really doesnt count as it has no timeline, you can't tell me how it could possibly have a timeline?

As you know, it can't possibly have a timeline. If it did, it would tell us all exactly when the bust would start and exactly the date it would stop.

All the graph is doing is showing how a boom and bust pans out based on history.

A lot of us can see we are following it pretty precisely.

A graph with no measurements on the axis is an illustration (picture) nothing more nothing less.
A graph is a visual representation of figures, no figures no graph sorry.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

that's exactly my point - if it can't have a time line how do you know when it started 1975, 1982, 1992 or 2001?

you see it and many others do to, i don't.
if you feel it fits your viewpoint. it's not a problem at all.
it's just not for me. i'm allowed to have a different opinion on it.



this raises another question i have about the graph.
a micro boom (current cycles) and bust cycle or a macro boom (a couple or more cycles) and bust cycles?

not trying to be difficult Graham - i want to understand why other posters see it as what is happening.

It's actuallty extremely easy to see. Follow the house prices and follow that "wall art" and you will easily see the correlation.

I can see why you don't see it though (this honestly is not a pop!)....it doesnt pan out how you see the house prices panning out. Same with other bulls. So of course you will disagree with it.

All I can see though, is that so far, since the start of the boom (or shall we say prices going up) we have followed that graph, sorry, artistic creation very closely, from the low points, right the way up the boom (remember, 2004-5 included as the bear trap) and I believe we are now in the bull trap.

We have used that graph on here for a while waiting for the bull trap. Some said that would never come. I believe we are there, as even the bulls admit prices cannot keep going up and this is short term. Thats EXACTLY what the graph says. You have said yourself prices wil still come down, so you have explained yourself the exact bull trap in the artists impression, yet when you see it drawn out, you disagree with it, and disagree with yourself also.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's actuallty extremely easy to see. Follow the house prices and follow that "wall art" and you will easily see the correlation.

maybe but obviously my post wasn't that easy to read because you still haven't answered the questions...

Really2

Look HPI follows this graph on chicken growth. If you knock out the numebers it would be even closer.;)