House prices up by 6% ?

reheat

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The dumbing down of society has reached MSE, I see.....

I'll try again with something more at your level.

Oh dear. I'm a novice to this (House Prices) forum, and I was just beginning to think I should be listening to what you are saying. Never mind.

chucky

Mr.Brown wrote: »

Unfortunately hostilities were resumed in the Brown household before the end of the Winter break, so there's not been much stocking filling in evidence this year.

Mr.Brown wrote: »

Does anyone else find the long Winter break a bit of a strain on relationships?

t'is ok duchess if at any point you have trouble in your life i will be there for you and you can stay with me. i miss you Mewbie.

chucky

New_Years_Day wrote: »

Yeah I've missed you Dan to be honest.

nice one Mrs B., nice one

btw i'm looking at getting an NSX as a weekend car, what are they like?

chucky

New_Years_Day wrote: »

Any around? Don't make them anymore, might be wrong.Used as police cars in Japan. Don't know anything else.

i was joking Mrs B - but thanks for the info

nearlynew

btw i'm looking at getting an NSX as a weekend car,

I take it you've got a small !!!!!! then cluncky ?

chucky

nearlynew wrote: »

I take it you've got a small !!!!!! then cluncky ?

now, now numptynew - as you see it was a joke between Mrs B and me. you weren't invited.
no need to get yourself and your tin hat all excited

zappahey

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Originally Posted by mbga9pgf
Mix adjustment cannot prevent skewing caused by variations in selling within particular types. So, if only nicer properties are selling due to mortgage funding issues, you can get skewing of the data. .

I didn't hear you complaining when the very same indices, using the same methodology, were showing prices falling.....:rolleyes:

Presumably a year ago, when prices were still tanking, the dross wasn't selling either.

Arguably, nothing much was selling at all at that time.

Purely my perception, but the area I watch appears to fit the hypothesis that only the very good stuff is selling and anything average to poor is not moving at all.

While I agree that indices can correct for differences in the mix of types of housing (number of rooms, detached, terraced, etc), I don't see how they can adjust for qualitative differences but I'm happy to be enlightened.

Arch-Angel

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

HMRC, from memory it was 90K 2 months ago and 87K last month.

LR only includes england and wales. HMRC is UK wide.

Didn't know that - thank you.

This is not a "indices are too low" argument (well - it is a little ) but I assume the HMRC numbers are in a similar "low" state when compared to the norm? The LR numbers suggested the monthly sales were still half of the norm, despite a 20% or so increase from the low.

I would argue that we're still low on house sales to make longer term trend estimations. We can spin it both ways - not enough sales, therefore HPI due to a lack of supply...and an increase in sales, meaning more confidence in the market.

The worry that "bad properties" are sitting on the market is a valid one; until there's confidence in apartments and 1-bed homes, these won't sell. This could be distorting the recovery figures - but the truth is experts can't agree on the effect (if any) this is having on the mark. Therefore we probably need another 20-30% increase in sales to get better information.

The proof in the pudding will be Mar-Apr this year. Too many houses on the market and the fragile recovery is in danger. Too few, combined with reported increased mortgage funding available and the market could shoot up and overheat. All speculation - which is good fun!

chucky

zappahey wrote: »

Arguably, nothing much was selling at all at that time.

it doesn't matter if much was selling - new price parameters have been set and will now have to be reversed.

it needed a few banks collapsing to get 15%-20% off peak and it took nearly 2 years.
that's not going to happen again - where's this crash going to come from?

HammerSmashedFace

chucky wrote: »

it needed a few banks collapsing to get 15%-20% off peak and it took nearly 2 years.
that's not going to happen again - where's this crash going to come from?

I guess it depends what happens with QE and IR's, we have backed ourselves into a corner as far as we can go, at best for the forseeable only the status quo can be kept as long as they keep printing.

We have mammoth amounts of debt, personal and public, that debt is going to have to be paid, inflating away worked in the 70's, it's not an option now. The day of reckoning has to come at some point, and with all the tools at our disposal now used it can't be too far away, only money printing is keeping the wolf from the door, and we all know that has consequences that will manifest and likely to make the final outcome worse.

With the arrival of peak oil, anyone thinking that if we do actually manage to get through this that we are on for another decade of unpresedented growth is sadly mistaken.