Some facts for a change, instead of speculation......

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I bet you couldn't even explain what "basics" i'm struggling with, in reference to your quote, even if you tried.

oh i do understand and explained it very clearly - it's just that you don't get it...

you say this

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL. Hamish base's supply and demand solely on buyers vs sellers. Thats correct in general terms.

then you try and back track in the same post by trying to laugh off my post

Graham_Devon wrote: »

After all that telling me whats included, chucky says "but yer, hamish is correct in general terms".

where you this slow in school or do you just like arguing with everyone and everything? :think:

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Can Graham or Rugged please explain which precise bit of the post they are disagreeing with and why?

Sure.

I mean I have already explained 3 or 4 times now. But I'll do it again, just for you.

Hamish highlighted some facts he found from a bloke on the internet, relating purely to buyers vs sellers. He didn't highlight the other bits. He than goes on to ASK us a question. Now, when asking a question, you are offering others to put their thoughts across.

Hamish said...

Now, looking at the above, the hard fundamentals of supply and demand, how on earth does any sane person expect to see significant price falls in the near future?

I'll break this down....

"Looking at the above" - Tends to mean Hamish is refering to the above figures, purely buyers vs sellers.

"Hard fundamentals of supply and demand" - Following "looking at the above" you would assume Hamish is basing supply and demand soley on that, as he calls them the hard fundimentals.

"How on earth does any sane person expect to see significant price falls in the future" - Asks a question to "sane" people. He's asking for an answer.

Now that that has been broken down in to small chunks, you will find that no one is disagreeing with Hamish. They are offering opinion. They are offering opinion based on what hamish gave, when he said "looking at the above" and how he based "supply and demand" at the outset.

The disagreement has come later, when suddenly, anyone "looking at the above" to base their response, as they were asked to do, is wrong, dense, doesnt understand. Though of course, Hamish, when looking at the above, DOES understand, and is right.

I realise this post is a sad indicament of how tiresome and pedantic this forum has become. I realise you only asked the question to try and carry on the argument as if you "dont understand" and you'll get some thanks for it. I realise the thread will now change to some more attacks because I have answered you as requested.

purch

I was right about the "Sanity" issue :rolleyes:

ruggedtoast

Well yet again another thread collapses into acrimony, confusion, ill will and obfuscation.

All I can say is I feel sorry for poor young Graham who has again born the brunt of the burden of ridicule.

He genuinely comes here in the spirit of openness as well but all that greets him is beastliness.

chucky

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Well yet again another thread collapses into acrimony, confusion, ill will and obfuscation.

All I can say is I feel sorry for poor young Graham who has again born the brunt of the burden of ridicule.

He genuinely comes here in the spirit of openness as well but all that greets him is beastliness.

he is being bullied i tell you :rolleyes:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

julieq wrote: »

I'm struggling to see what is being objected to in Hamish's post relating to supply and demand.

There are some baffling comments from Rugged and Graham's question regarding how prices were falling when supply was being choked after the banking crisis (answer, demand was falling faster, demand was affected by confidence and withdrawal of mortgage finance, both of which Hamish explained clearly).

Can Graham or Rugged please explain which precise bit of the post they are disagreeing with and why?

(presumably we're about to get a sulky "I can't be bothered explaining now")

It's why I usually don't bother engaging with them....

Toasty just sulks instead of answering, and Graham distracts with yet another "oh look, a shiny thing" moment.

Really2

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Would this be the time to point out the demand is defined as having the ability to pay, as well as the desire?

I think I covered quiet a few of the points in this.

Really2 wrote: »

A very basic anology would be.

Think of it as a auction without reserves on items you want but you have to hit a criteria to get in (10% deposit).
The prices they get to will be dictated by the amount of people there, there access to funds and what they want to buy.
More people are let in the lower the entrance criteria is but that will only change prices if people want to buy or can compete.
If you then half the number of lots available only the ones with the most cash will win auctions.

It's the same on the way down if prices are falling less people want to go or can afford to go. Add to that an increase in entrance criteria (25%) and the auction will be half empty.
Then add 200% more stock and prices will fall for sure.

It is basic and does not take in to account many reasons that may effect supply and demand but gives an idea of what a change in supply or demand can do to bidding.

I think my final point would be people will always try pay as little as possible but current market conditions will always dictate what that price is.

Not sure it makes sense but desire is going to the auction, the entrance criteria is deposit, and bidding (limit) is affordability.
All of those are limiters for demand (amongst many others)

ruggedtoast

julieq wrote: »

I'm struggling to see what is being objected to in Hamish's post relating to supply and demand.

There are some baffling comments from Rugged and Graham's question regarding how prices were falling when supply was being choked after the banking crisis (answer, demand was falling faster, demand was affected by confidence and withdrawal of mortgage finance, both of which Hamish explained clearly).

Can Graham or Rugged please explain which precise bit of the post they are disagreeing with and why?

(presumably we're about to get a sulky "I can't be bothered explaining now")

I'm not sure what youre on about Jules - what question did Graham and I ask that produced comments that baffled you?

Precise bit of what post?

julieq

So breaking down Hamish's facts

Clause 1: Supply is down (with numbers)

Clause 2: Sales of houses are up (with numbers)

Clause 3: Evidence offered that there is a shortfall between the number of houses being sold and the number required to fulfull demand (with numbers).

Clause 4: Evidence offered that asking prices were unchanged YOY, but that there is a larger gap between asking prices and selling prices, explained (with numbers giving sources) by a fall YOY in average prices.

Clause 5: evidence offered on selling rates increasing, noting that the current stock of houses would be sold in 256 days rather than the long term average of 308 days. Hence demand is higher than normal

Leading to the obvious question, given that these indicators collectively show greater demand than supply, why should we expect prices to fall?

There are some answers to this, including an increase in supply or a decrease in demand, either of which could happen on the basis of reasonable assumptions, but it's nothing to do with an argument about the relationship of supply and demand to a market which is what happened. And I still don't understand what the question of how prices can decrease when supply is falling has the remotest relevance, still less how product lifecycle has anything to do with it.

(cue another sulky refusal to engage, or a complaint my posts are too long to be bothered with, or a textbook Chewbacca defence). Or maybe all three.

Really2

I think the only problem anyone could of had with it (Hamish's tread) is that things can effect supply and demand instantly (Like the credit crunch).

But again this is still a supply and demand issue.

I think too many people have thought "no there are 1001 other things"

But those 1001 other things boil down to effects on supply and demand.