MSE News: Land Registry reports further house prices rise (up 1.7%)

chucky

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Within the limited figures provided by Hamish, there was a period of 4 months;

Feb-92 £51,850 DOWN
Mar-92 £51,978 UP
Apr-92 £51,978 UP
May-92 £52,713 UP
Jun-92 £52,906 UP
Jul-92 £52,727 DOWN

i can only see 2 months up. 2 of those months are the same
you were probably looking at the non-adjusted for 1991

Mar-91 £52,893
Apr-91 £53,677
May-91 £54,386
Jun-91 £55,107

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

After 16 DOWN figures this time around, using Hamish's list, instead of 5 down, 2 up, 3 down, 1 up etc then is 6 up for a spell that different from 4 up...??

I didn't see you or Dan saying blimey 15 down in a row, this is something special...but 6 up in a row is unique and important...?

you've confused yourself here - i'm not the one making all the comparisons to the 1990s recession. that was you!!
i've always said that you can't compare the two and the only reason they were saying it's the same, is because it suits their viewpoint not because it's realistic.

Dan:_4

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

The 90s is used to compare because its the easiest set of stats to find - although we don't even seem to have 89-90 any more...does anyone know where they went...? Would like a reminder of spring 90 figures, as it seemed "the right time"...

As you like comparing to the 90s so much, how about this: Average house prices fell 12%-15% before reaching the bottom in the 90s.

We have already had more then that this time, the only difference being much quicker.

mewbie_2

Dan: wrote: »

As you like comparing to the 90s so much, how about this: Average house prices fell 12%-15% before reaching the bottom in the 90s.

We have already had more then that this time, the only difference being much quicker.

Lets assume you are right Dan. I guess our kids will never be able to buy a house?

the_ash_and_the_oak

should be pointed out that while nominal falls may be greater than last time around not really feeling that same is true of real falls imo

Really2

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

should be pointed out that while nominal falls may be greater than last time around not really feeling that same is true of real falls imo

You do not see "real" falls until after the event, they were nominal at the time.
So I presume the 80/90's felt better that the falls were lower, but worse that they lasted so long.

So say wage inflation paid a part in real falls, doubling the saving for potential buyers (15% nomianal drop = 15% wage inflation)
But owners did not have double the loss as their wages went up also, so they had a nominal loss but and wage inflation gain.

Dan:_4

mewbie wrote: »

Lets assume you are right Dan. I guess our kids will never be able to buy a house?

Why would this be the case? Im not expecting massive HPI for the next decade, are you?

StevieJ

Dan: wrote: »

As you like comparing to the 90s so much, how about this: Average house prices fell 12%-15% before reaching the bottom in the 90s.

We have already had more then that this time, the only difference being much quicker.

That has always been my point, the CC meant that lending stopped like it had hit a brick wall, prices collapsed quicker and so would reach the bottom quicker, that is why I said the bottom 20% Spring 2009. I obviously was only guessing like everyone else, the jury is still out but it may well look like a fairly obvious scenario when we look back in a few years. Don't you just love how those articles containing economic analysis of the past seem so certain and obvious e.g. the Barber and Lawson booms.

Cannon_Fodder

chucky wrote: »

i can only see 2 months up. 2 of those months are the same
you were probably looking at the non-adjusted for 1991

Mar-91 £52,893
Apr-91 £53,677
May-91 £54,386
Jun-91 £55,107



you've confused yourself here - i'm not the one making all the comparisons to the 1990s recession. that was you!!
i've always said that you can't compare the two and the only reason they were saying it's the same, is because it suits their viewpoint not because it's realistic.

Sorry I didn't check the £ amounts, I trusted Hamish's annotation of UP...

But I'll accept the non-adjusted examples!

Back up a sec, I was just trying to explain why 90s was used - ease of stats, in people memories etc... I'm sort of agreeing with the indirect factor of the 90s, some things have changed, some things haven't, but its the most recent equivalent and history usually teaches us something when we ignore it...

You and others are making a big thing of "6 UP" mattering. Because in the 90s there was no such period, so it must mean something...I call that comparing...

I'm saying, where were you all at the 15th DOWN month, acknowledging that this crash was something special/unseen?

Want to see 89/90 again, did we have 12, 16 months straight down - if we did then this time isn't so remarkable...but I doubt we did.

mewbie_2

Dan: wrote: »

Why would this be the case? Im not expecting massive HPI for the next decade, are you?

Don't try and trick me with your clever words. I am here to learn, not be befuddled by massive intellects.

StevieJ

mewbie wrote: »

Lets assume you are right Dan. I guess our kids will never be able to buy a house?

They were more thabn happy to buy in 95.