Anyone Nervous?

ad44downey

mewbie wrote: »

Oh not at all Chucky.. er.. Dan. For one thing I don't need to deploy aliases to back up my story. To break free from the endless moronic squabble fest is surely a victory.

mewbie, you're wasting your time arguing with chucky, dan and pickles. Especially as they're all the same nutter; he's got more socks than Marks and Spencer.

Snooze

ad44downey wrote: »

mewbie, you're wasting your time arguing with chucky, dan and pickles. Especially as they're all the same nutter; he's got more socks than Marks and Spencer.

:rotfl::T

Classic!

Rob

chucky

Snooze wrote: »

By the way chucky, surely August 2007 was not the 'First Sell Off' point in the graph, but actually the 'New Paradigm' point? I don't recall 'enthusiasm', 'greed' and 'delusion' happening after August 2007...

R

thanks for the sensible reply and agree with your point- i don't discount the graph and have said previously if it didn't have time in the x-axis it would be just another view on how things will/have progressed.

what my point (in your opinion weak) is when does the time axis start and end. when i mentioned the Bull Traps and New Paradigm i was trying to put a period of time to show that the graph is no way to scale - so how does it apply to the current HPC.

therefore, i'm asking does the graph apply to one cycle of HPC or a number of them. again, as i mentioned in previous posts it's not a statement saying it's wrong but a question to those who believe in it.

ad44downey

Great post Dan........ oops sorry I mean chucky. It's an easy mistake to make.

Snooze

chucky wrote: »

thanks for the sensible reply and agree with your point- i don't discount the graph and have said previously if it didn't have time in the x-axis it would be just another view on how things will/have progressed.

what my point (in your opinion weak) is when does the time axis start and end. when i mentioned the Bull Traps and New Paradigm i was trying to put a period of time to show that the graph is no way to scale - so how does it apply to the current HPC.

therefore, i'm asking does the graph apply to one cycle of HPC or a number of them. again, as i mentioned in previous posts it's not a statement saying it's wrong but a question to those who believe in it.

I kinda agree with you about the time period and understand what you were trying to get at before, but you tried to use as a sort of 'anti-bear' argument and it didn't really work as - by your own admission - there is no time scale on the graph .

However, if you compare that graph to the other one that shows the peaks and troughs of the average house prices over the 30 years there is an uncanny similarity between them, I'm sure you would agree. I personally do believe we are in that 'bull trap' phase and this alleged 'recovery' will last 12-18 months at the most where it will be followed by quite heavy falls (similar to 2008), mainly caused by rapidly increasing IRs and mass unemployment.

2p..

Rob

R

chucky

Snooze wrote: »

I kinda agree with you about the time period and understand what you were trying to get at before, but you tried to use as a sort of 'anti-bear' argument and it didn't really work as - by your own admission - there is no time scale on the graph .

However, if you compare that graph to the other one that shows the peaks and troughs of the average house prices over the 30 years there is an uncanny similarity between them, I'm sure you would agree. I personally do believe we are in that 'bull trap' phase and this alleged 'recovery' will last 12-18 months at the most where it will be followed by quite heavy falls (similar to 2008), mainly caused by rapidly increasing IRs and mass unemployment.

2p..

Rob

R

spot on and it was what i was saying minus the bear argument over the 30 year period.

my view is the same as yours as far as bull trap goes but i'm thinking of a W-shape recession where the 2nd part is shallower. you're saying it's going to be deeper.
that's fine - at least you've come out and put the argument back at me instead of trying to make it personal which shows much credibility compared to others who would have used that graph without knowing how it fit into the current scenario.

ess0two

ad44downey wrote: »

mewbie, you're wasting your time arguing with chucky, dan and pickles. Especially as they're all the same nutter; he's got more socks than Marks and Spencer.

Fatpig,napoleon,pizza girl to name but a few,people in glass houses should'nt throw stones.

orangefender

Hi everyone,

I've just read through this thread with some interest and I think it's fairly obvious that nobody knows what's around the corner. However, one factor which I can't see has been raised by anyone (but apologies if I have in fact skimmed over someone's comments), is the house price-earnings ratio.

I understand over the long term this has been the most reliable indicator of affordability with a long term average of x3.5. I haven't seen any recent figures but I expect we are still some way from that. What are the posters thoughts on 1) whether the long term average of x3.5 is purely historic and not to be seen again: if so why?; and 2) if the ratio is not historic, in view of the current downward trend in average earnings, why can we expect anything other than falling house prices in the medium term?

chucky

orangefender wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I've just read through this thread with some interest and I think it's fairly obvious that nobody knows what's around the corner. However, one factor which I can't see has been raised by anyone (but apologies if I have in fact skimmed over someone's comments), is the house price-earnings ratio.

I understand over the long term this has been the most reliable indicator of affordability with a long term average of x3.5. I haven't seen any recent figures but I expect we are still some way from that. What are the posters thoughts on 1) whether the long term average of x3.5 is purely historic and not to be seen again: if so why?; and 2) if the ratio is not historic, in view of the current downward trend in average earnings, why can we expect anything other than falling house prices in the medium term?

from this months Halifax figures the long term average is 4.0

The house price to earnings ratio – a key affordability measure - has declined by from a peak of 5.84 in July 2007 to an estimated 4.36 in May 2009. The ratio is now at a level last seen in January 2003. The long-term average is 4.0.

not sure how this would be or wouldn't be influenced by rates if it was wages against house prices. have to check their calculation methodology.

mewbie_2

orangefender wrote: »

x3.5

They have been way above that and are returning slowly to normal. And of course will drop below normal for a while. So look out for 3 times, maybe even less._party_