Crash crash crash part 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

digipeep

Thanks for just proving my point chucky

chucky

digipeep wrote: »

Thanks for just proving my point chucky

lmao - you joker :rotfl:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

digipeep wrote: »

Thanks for just proving my point chucky

So you can't answer the points raised by Julieq and myself in the thread then......:rolleyes:

Well done.;)

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

please read below... and answer the points if you can... instead of the delusional comments of "that graph gets the Bulls out frothing at the mouth" :rotfl:

Originally Posted by julieq
Errrr, the graph goes back 36 years so we're not looking at this bubble, we're looking at house prices over a very long period. If you're looking for correlation with the famous graph, you have to take maybe the last 8 years maximum, otherwise you lose resolution on the Y axis.

As has been noted before, if you superimpose a long term trend line on that graph of 2.9% compounded HPI, we are now below trend again, so the bubble graph doesn't apply in the form that is being claimed.

The really laughable thing is that if there were indeed a means of predicting the future from graphs we'd have a lovely new paradigm and we'd all be rich.

what this lady said
:T:T:T:T:T

Um..........

If you exclude the 7.2% compound increase between 1999 and 2009 fom the figures . Which is far above the 36 year average of 2.9% compound.

The true compound growth rate is in fact far lower. Or will be lower. As the market will correct with either falls, small rises or static prices until the real long term trend is resumed.

Isn't it.

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Um..........

If you exclude the 7.2% compound increase between 1999 and 2009 fom the figures . Which is far above the 36 year average of 2.9% compound.

The true compound growth rate is in fact far lower. Or will be lower. As the market will correct with either falls, small rises or static prices until the real long term trend is resumed.

Isn't it.

or if you just take the period from 1999 to 2009 then that will be a higher amount... where would the trend line be then?

30 years is fair period of time isn't it?

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

or if you just take the period from 1999 to 2009 then that will be a higher amount... where would the trend line be then?

30 years is fair period of time isn't it?

Then you have factor in 25% of all mortgages being on an interest basis between 1999 and 2007. In 2007 at the peak it was around 500,000 mortgages.

This was an overwhelming market infuence on prices in the period. As people were able to borrow more than they could afford. Without a repayment vehicle.

I and my friends could remortgage our houses and assets. Buy £50 million pounds worth of Vodaphone shares. The immediate impact would be to drive the share price upwards. Same with the house market , as at the end of the day its still a market.

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Then you have factor in 25% of all mortgages being on an interest basis between 1999 and 2007. In 2007 at the peak it was around 500,000 mortgages.

This was an overwhelming market infuence on prices in the period. As people were able to borrow more than they could afford. Without a repayment vehicle.

you're making the assumption they haven't repaid any of the capital or don't have repayment vehicles to repay that capital...

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I and my friends could remortgage our houses and assets. Buy £50 million pounds worth of Vodaphone shares. The immediate impact would be to drive the share price upwards. Same with the house market , as at the end of the day its still a market.

of course and the market will/has corrected itself

Thrugelmir

There'll be a high percentage of subprime, BTL, 100%, self certified borrowers in the I/o mortgagees.

These would have borrowed on the basis that prices were going to rise and rise.

At the very least. They'll act as a drag on the market. As they'll be stuck where they are and be unable to move for the foreseeable future.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Thrugelmir wrote: »

At the very least. They'll act as a drag on the market. As they'll be stuck where they are and be unable to move for the foreseeable future.

And in so doing, will also cut supply of properties coming on to the market by an equal amount.

Thrugelmir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And in so doing, will also cut supply of properties coming on to the market by an equal amount.

No as everybody needs somewhere to live. It reduces activity. Which is the driver for prices.