Nationwide +1.3 (-6.2 YoY)

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

No, Graham, short term fluctuations won't change it much at all. The more points you're averaging over, the more difficult it is for the last few to affect the average, because you have the accumulated weight of the previous ones.

That's why averages (and rolling averages) are used, because they filter out short term fluctuations. But an exponential trend isn't even a graph of averages, it's a compound curve based on the long term average growth.

Look at it this way, if you have a set of 40 numbers all 3, how much does the 41st number need to change by to get the average to 3.5?

Aha, see, did I say ANYTHING about short term? Or long term? Or even just term?

Not in the simple post I didn't, but in my other posts I did and talked about 10 years.

julieq

Calm down Graham, the answer is that the last number has to be 23.5, so about 8 times the value of the previous numbers. That is to change the average from 3 to 3.5.

The line basically doesnt move when prices go up in a boom or bust, it is designed to show an average trend that stays more or less constant.

chucky

ad9898 wrote: »

Here is my quote from yesterday on the subject..



As I suspected, remember the 0.5% drop from Halifax last month ???, nope thought not, it was hardly reported. With this kind of bias, sentiment against rising prices doesn't stand a chance.

your short term memory is failing...
like when it was only 0.5% fall on Rightmove and it was described as:

House prices dived in June after four months of improvements, figures out today from property website Rightmove shows

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/22/house-prices-rightmove-halifax-nationwide

surely this month they could go to town with +1.3% right?

Graham_Devon

Infact, rather strange thread this one.

House prices go up. Most (if not all actually) accept it. No bickering about how it shouldn't be this way, no conspiracy theories.

So instead, it appears we have to find something to fight about. So this time it's not about what was said. But about what wasn't said and what the poster actually meant....when if the poster meant that, they would have most likely typed that instead of typing what they did.

Are we all so involved in this, that although all singing from the same hym sheet, we simply HAVE to find something to disagree on, so it's got to this stage of picking on what wasn't said in a single post. If we can't find that, it's onto little petty remarks totally out of all context?

Tis mighty confusing all this.

julieq

wolvoman wrote: »

There's something very wrong with that graph regarding the trend line.

1. It doesn't 'trend down' during the downturns.

2. It shows the trend at 2.7% per annum in Q2 2007. It shows 2.9% in Q2 2009. How on earth could the trend have gone up despite prices having fallen 10% or so in that time?

1) as discussed already, it can't because it's an exponential trend line.

2) it's over a different rolling 30 year window so the average growth is marginally different.

ad9898_3

GSXRCarlos wrote: »

Yahoo have just shouted this out to everyone

here we go again!

chucky wrote: »

your short term memory is failing...
like when it was only 0.5% fall on Rightmove and it was described as:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/22/house-prices-rightmove-halifax-nationwide

surely this month they could go to town with +1.3% right?

The word 'dived' on a property website is hardly the same as 'the second coming' being reported on every national news bulletin both on the TV and radio is it.

julieq

Ad has really recovered all of his applomb now, I was very worried about him this morning when he looked a broken man

Strictly speaking the second coming is just before Armageddon, so in fact it's a relatively pessimistic forecast.

chucky

ad9898 wrote: »

The word 'dived' on a property website is hardly the same as 'the second coming' being reported on every national news bulletin both on the TV and radio is it.

i wouldn't call that a property website - it's in the the national press from The Guardian.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Calm down Graham, the answer is that the last number has to be 23.5, so about 8 times the value of the previous numbers. That is to change the average from 3 to 3.5.

Blimey. Can I get any calmer today? If I did I'd be told that my calmness was the wrong type of calmness and that actually I didnt mean to be calm.

Were getting into mathmatical genius / being an*l now are we not over a simple question of whether the trend line can rise or fall?

(And I do mean the whole line, not a slope, or a big fall, or a small fall, or a large rise, or a medium rise, or a rise so minute that your calculations are out by 0.0006 or 0.0007 or 8....and so on....oh and 9, just so I don't get told I actually meant 9).

I like the simple gravity scenario, and I'm sticking with it.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Tis mighty confusing all this.

Well it as stopped those I have saved £XXXX this month posts.

I always classed saving as money put in to an account