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

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Thrugelmir wrote: »

It reduces activity. Which is the driver for prices.

Really?

And there I was thinking it was the ratio between buyers and sellers that was the driver for prices.

Silly me.

So seeing as how "activity" has been near all time lows for the last 6 months, prices will have been falling, and couldn't possibly have risen by 7.5% on the back of restricted supply, right?

Thrugelmir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Really?

And there I was thinking it was the ratio between buyers and sellers that was the driver for prices.

Silly me.

So seeing as how "activity" has been near all time lows for the last 6 months, prices will have been falling, and couldn't possibly have risen by 7.5% on the back of restricted supply, right?

As you say activity is at an all time low. With local variations coming into play. I would be unable to sell my house for 7.5% more than 6 months ago.

Once a buyer has bought they won't be buying again. So the question is whether momentum can be maintained over a further 18/24 month period.

julieq

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.

That's a ridiculous argument frankly. The long term average is what it is, and it really doesn't change much because of a short term bubble, because any numbers in the bubble part of the sample are weighed down by the numbers in the remaining part. That is the point of long term averaging, it's a filtering technique.

That's unimportant anyway, because the line in the famous graph for the "mean" is using the SAME methodology, i.e. it is a long term average INCLUDING the bubble. So comparing like for like, we are below the mean and off the "bear trap" section of the graph. You can't now wriggle away from that and say it's a different line anyway and would have been lower if and if and if. The standard method of showing long term trends is an exponential curve based on the average, both sets of graphs use the SAME methodology.

But the graph is subjective hokum anyway, it's designed to be a sort of "Book of Revelations" for the neo-millenial true believers so they can tick off the events that have been prophesied and buy into the theory. All sorts of tricks are being played with the vertical scale to over-dramatise the result, and in particular the exponential rise (which is inevitable with compounding of values) is over emphasised.

If you could accurately predict the future from graphs, we'd all be rich. And we're not, therefore there is a problem somewhere in the theory.

Harry_Powell

I could read julieq posts all day, they're so well written, informative and concise. I wonder if she is a single lady... :think:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

julieq wrote: »

If you could accurately predict the future from graphs, we'd all be rich. And we're not, therefore there is a problem somewhere in the theory.

To add to that, the basic psychology of bubbles is well understood and represented reasonably accurately within the graph.

What is not accurate is the scale, representation of mean, or timing of the bull/bear traps when the graph is overlaid onto the current UK housing cycle.

Nor is it assured that all cycles have all the component parts of the lifecycle of a bubble graph, or even that all the psychological events within a bubble will happen within a UK housing cycle.

chucky

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

To add to that, the basic psychology of bubbles is well understood and represented reasonably accurately within the graph.

What is not accurate is the scale, representation of mean, or timing of the bull/bear traps when the graph is overlaid onto the current UK housing cycle.

Nor is it assured that all cycles have all the component parts of the lifecycle of a bubble graph, or even that all the psychological events within a bubble will happen within a UK housing cycle.

the funny things that bearish people won't want to understand is that the guy that created this graph put all of this together in 2006 - the 18th of January 2006, not 1995, 1990 or even 1985.
http://people.hofstra.edu/Jean-paul_Rodrigue/blogs.html

so he's taken the actual trend of house prices and then drawn around it with the different phases he's applied after the events...

to be fair to the guy he does writes a lot of sense but it's a study of what has happened not what he is predicting.

when will the silly bears understand this

Thrugelmir

That's a ridiculous argument frankly. The long term average is what it is, and it really doesn't change much because of a short term bubble,

Whilst your posts are enjoyable to read. Cutting through the waffle. Where are your hard facts ?

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

the funny things that bearish people won't want to understand is that the guy that created this graph put all of this together in 2006 - the 18th of January 2006, not 1995, 1990 or even 1985.

Possibly he would revise his views now? 2006 was a different era to now. :rolleyes:

Have bulls caught up with reality?

julieq

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Whilst your posts are enjoyable to read. Cutting through the waffle. Where are your hard facts ?

Sorry, what facts do you need exactly?

Where I need figures to support an argument I bring in hard numbers, usually quote my source, and explain underlying assumptions. Hence pointing out the X axis scale in my original post on this thread and the number used for compounded average growth. If there is one thing I bang on about more than anything else it's the use of unreferenced numbers cherry picked to give an impression not borne out by their absolute significance.

But the central argument here is not around absolute numbers, it's about how a graph should be interpreted, and specifically whether the "mean" on the predictor graph is the same as the long term average on the actual price graphs. Which it is.

Therefore reading the two graphs like for like, they are not correlated. They just look approximately similar when you remove the baselining.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

julieq wrote: »

Sorry, what facts do you need exactly?

Where I need figures to support an argument I bring in hard numbers, usually quote my source, and explain underlying assumptions. Hence pointing out the X axis scale in my original post on this thread and the number used for compounded average growth. If there is one thing I bang on about more than anything else it's the use of unreferenced numbers cherry picked to give an impression not borne out by their absolute significance.

But the central argument here is not around absolute numbers, it's about how a graph should be interpreted, and specifically whether the "mean" on the predictor graph is the same as the long term average on the actual price graphs. Which it is.

Therefore reading the two graphs like for like, they are not correlated. They just look approximately similar when you remove the baselining.

Yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but, but, but, but what about the......

LIAR LOANS!!!!!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Or something.


And cause I only make 15K a year and work at Tesco then prices have to drop A LOT further cause nobody makes more than me, my friends all told me they don't and everything.

And that chart looks great and fits my beliefs so it must be true.

Right Guys?