Phew

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

So HPI + Fall = Stagnant too you.

So we never had a fall in prices just stagnation.

Come on graham stagnant means flat not moving up or down any great amount.

Oh bloody hell. Not again.

It wasn't even me who said it. It was ISTL.

BUT, 2003/4 price compared to todays price. thats all it is, a comparison, not looking at the prices inbetween. So yes, when you compare those 2 years, overall, it could be described as stagnant.

Anything else you wish to add to your stirring pot and take out of context??

Perhaps you could say "ahhh but it's up since the year 1856, so not stagnant".

carolt

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I don't think you read posts properly Graham.

While I have pointed out that the street carolt referred to has pretty much remained stagnant since 2003, I did point out that the properties that have resold in 2009, sold for higher than end of 2004 prices.

I also pointed out using carolt's methodology that they have sold similar to other properties in the same street in 2007.

It appears that this street has not suffered to any large extent from prices rising or dropping and certainly do not appear to have crashed from £350k to under £250k

So why is the flat for sale at 250K not being snapped up then, ISTL?

When an identical one sold for 100K more just 2 years ago? Or - to give you the benefit of the doubt - identical but with a slap of magnolia?

Harry_Powell

carolt, you're brilliant. You've totally bamboozled them with the 2003/2004 stuff. :rotfl:

I take it back that it's a pointless discussion, because it's been fun to watch, but I maintain that looking backwards at prices is of little value to FTBers, especially as there may be a temptation to wait until prices go down to, say, 2002 levels (especially if that was when the FTBer first started to look at buying a house) and find that 2002 prices never return.

Always a pleasure to watch you in action though CT.

JonnyBravo

carolt wrote: »

Not really. It's entirely possible that the reverse could be true. That's averages for you.

Oh yes it's possible but that is "unlikely"
That why I said it was only "likely" before.

Seeing as you talk about "thats averages" do you understand that the following based on the data is actually "unlikely"

carolt wrote: »

As I stated, the current flat for sale at 250K is not selling. It's overpriced. It is unlikely to sell for more than the average for 2003, just like the last one that sold.

Any particular flat has of course, (and yes I know I'm assuming equal distribution etc etc), a 50% chance of being under the average for that year anyhow.


But seeing as the average has risen any random flat is now more likely to sell for over the 2003 average

You see...... that's averages!!!

:cool:


It's all nit-picking I know but the nit-picking is actually in favour of higher prices but as you say ..... you only need to be lucky once!

JonnyBravo

Cleaver wrote: »

No probs boss. Would you like a blow job in return for a pay rise?

Lets talk numbers!

:rotfl:

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh bloody hell. Not again.

It wasn't even me who said it. It was ISTL.

BUT, 2003/4 price compared to todays price. thats all it is, a comparison, not looking at the prices inbetween. So yes, when you compare those 2 years, overall, it could be described as stagnant.

Anything else you wish to add to your stirring pot and take out of context??

Perhaps you could say "ahhh but it's up since 1856, so not stagnant".

If prices were significantly higher at the peak and fell 30% to a level which was the same as 2004 that is not 5 years of stagnation is it.

For example if someone sold at peak did they sell at 2004 price also?

Your logic is errr, illogical.

carolt

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Oh yes it's possible but that is "unlikely"
That why I said it was only "likely" before.

Seeing as you talk about "thats averages" do you understand that the following based on the data is actually "unlikely"



Any particular flat has of course, (and yes I know I'm assuming equal distribution etc etc), a 50% chance of being under the average for that year anyhow.


But seeing as the average has risen any random flat is now more likely to sell for over the 2003 average

You see...... that's averages!!!

:cool:


It's all nit-picking I know but the nit-picking is actually in favour of higher prices but as you say ..... you only need to be lucky once!

If the figures show anything it's that there is anything but an equal distribution. The words 'utterly random' spring to mind.

the_ash_and_the_oak

chucky wrote: »

i couldn't be bothered to scroll up. it's always better when a woman does the work for you

Hanwell or West Ealing aren't the best indicators of rental values to be fair.

rental values for larger 3 or 4 bed properties as i understand it in the London area haven't increased and probably stayed the same. Ash and the Oak confirmed this recently.

one bed (definetly) and probably imo two flats (in more central areas) is where rental prices have increased probably beyond inflation in London since 2003 to 2008. the road that you mentioned is in Zone 3.

since 2008 they have dropped off though

I'd thought that was true - you said that on another thread and I thought that seemed reasonable - but I checked for NW5 (zone 2) on that thread and 1 and 2 bed flats were unchanged from 2002 also (I'll try find the post with the link in a sec)

JonnyBravo

carolt wrote: »

If the figures show anything it's that there is anything but an equal distribution. The words 'utterly random' spring to mind.

Another trap of statistics.

Clumping etc is a natural phenomenon of distribution. It always causes confusion. eg the fuss around cancers around some electricity pylons etc. An ordered and equal spacing actually isn't a random pattern that can be expected to be observed in a population.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

If prices were significantly higher at the peak and fell 30% to a level which was the same as 2004 that is not 5 years of stagnation is it.

For example if someone sold at peak did they sell at 2004 price also?

Your logic is errr, illogical.

I don't know why I am bothering in all honesty.

You are comparing two sets of data. Year 1 and Year 2.

To put it slightly different. According to Halifax have we seen house price growth Year on Year? No.

Have we seen house price growth this year. Yes.

It's a simple reference point which you cannot get your head around. I see what you are saying, yes, there was HPI inbetween those dates, but that is disregarded in this sense. Theres no need to include it for any reason in the context of the discussion.