Halifax +2.6 % MoM

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

So you would agree the trend line needs to be nearer if not level with "bull trap" for it to be like this crash?

It is nothing like

adr0ck

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The nationwide is just one measure of house prices. It's used conviniently dependant on what people want to prove.

So I wouldn't rely just on the nationwide, would be my first suggestion, and it's a suggestion of everyone here depending on what they are trying to prve at the time!

As to which is right. At the moment, we cannot tell. We have not finished this bust cycle. Only when it has finished will we be able to take stock. Some may say it's now finished, which is fine, but thats the reason others fall back on the illustration....and why the illustration is posted on page 3

What I'm being told is that the graph is wrong, by several bullish posters. I just want to know WHY it's wrong, but no one can tell me, only that it is wrong, unless I prove it's right, which is totally impossible for me to do, they know that too, which is why they keep prodding me in that direction

i'm not sure if the graph is right or wrong

i think bits of it are probably right and bits probably wrong

i think were in a unique situation

so no one really knows

personnally i still think house prices will fall a bit further and then hopefully bob along at that level for a bit

but i certainly don't believe that they will fall anywhere near as much as a lot of people still seem to think they will do

mewbie_2

Fortunately I have to get back to work, so you can carry on with the trend line discussion for a couple of pages. I know what I mean, I know it makes sense - and I know you know it too.

But back to work, my future BTL empire won't build itself.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

So you would agree the trend line needs to be nearer if not level with "bull trap" for it to be like this crash?

ONLY if it had a timeline on it. Which you have told us all very often, it does not.

Can't have it all ways.

I really am eye wateringly bored with the illustration arguing. It's becoming pathetic in all honesty. One minute theres no timeline so its wrong, the next you want to paste a point in time on it to say its wrong.

Seriously guys. Take stock. If it's wrong, explain why. But don't say its wrong one way and then use why you said it was wrong the first time to say its wrong again. You'll notice it also has no indicator of the prices on the vertical axis, though thats not stopped anyone taking the vertical axis as godsend.

It's an indicator, that is all. Over and out.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yer, no probs. I have been trying to distant myself from the immature arguments recently, hence my post the other day explaining my bearish views etc.

So will remove it completely, as I admit, it's a bit immature, but was a bit of fun

Are you trying to shame me into removing mine

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

ONLY if it had a timeline on it. Which you have told us all very often, it does not.

Can't have it all ways.

What difference would a time line make? We are at mean price that will not change it will either go below or above it but A time-line won't change it.

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

Are you trying to shame me into removing mine

LOL nope. Feel free to keep and update it

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's an indicator, that is all. Over and out.

If that mens you are not presenting it as the truth I will agree. (I just dont see it as a truthfull reprentation and was willing for you to change my view with some evidence)

It is an indicator for what, who knows?

thegibdog

The mean on the graph doesn't make sense as the red 'valuation' line spends far longer above the mean than below it.

IveSeenTheLight

StevieJ wrote: »

Hey top chart, I was hoping Devon was going to show us that one

It is a good chart, I'm wondering why they stopped in Jan 09 and have not showed that we are below the trend line?