Nationwide's Real 0.4% fall - December

StevieJ

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Sorry chucky I disagree. It is the non-seasonally adjusted figures that are more appropriate in my eyes. Granted that means the increases were larger in the summer and there are now falls all levelling out to the same picture but I'd rather work non-adjusted.
The people who work out these figures obviously think I'm incapable of taking account of the seasonal trends in moving house. I'm not. It's silly.

In that case I personally think a small drop in December was a positive not negative sign for the housing market.

mbga9pgf

StevieJ wrote: »

So why couldn't you see the power of these policies 12 months ago

I dont think many of us could have comprehended the possibility of theGovernor of the Bank of Bloody England trashing the pound with a number of press conferences.

And initially, QE was set at a paltry 75 Billion, the market was convinced that it may only go a smidge over, not end with nearly 3 times that amount.

HammerSmashedFace

StevieJ wrote: »

So why couldn't you see the power of these policies 12 months ago

They aren't doing anything Steve, they are masking, kickin the problem, and making it worse into the near future. IMO they aren't fixing anything.

If they were genuinely fixing it I would agree with you, it seems to me quite obvious though that they aren't, remove them today and s*it hits the fan again, that's not a fix it's a mask, if the policies were permanent then great, they aren't.

Give a bloke with no legs a wheelchair and he can get around fine, remove the wheelchair and he's stuck, whether you remove the wheelchair tomorrow or next month, the result will be the same, if he has the wheelchair permanently then he'd be fine.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

mbga9pgf wrote: »

No, not at all.. I was pointing out half of typical lending is not a booming mortgage market. Its a return towards conservative lending totals. .

But nobody has claimed it's a booming mortgage market.

And 2007 levels were not typical. They were the absolute peak of the top of a 15-18 year housing cycle.

What we should be looking for now are the levels of mortgage approvals at the start of this new cycle, not the end of the last one. So 1997 levels of approvals, not 2007 levels.

Besides, we know the level of approvals required to cause a crash, at 30,000 per month last year prices were plummeting. We also know that prices have risen strongly all year on the back of improvements from that number.

mbga9pgf

.

Besides, we know the level of approvals required to cause a crash, at 30,000 per month last year prices were plummeting. We also know that prices have risen strongly all year on the back of improvements from that number.

Depends on supply though Jock Mcfarter. If we get a glut of properties at the same time reverse QE kicks in, increased transactions wont mean sh*t. It will just mean reduced properties are selling quickly.

chucky

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Depends on supply though Jock Mcfarter. If we get a glut of properties at the same time reverse QE kicks in, increased transactions wont mean sh*t. It will just mean reduced properties are selling quickly.

it's that word 'if' again - the favorite word of those that hope for Armageddon

if i won the lottery - it's not going to happen...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Depends on supply though Jock Mcfarter.

Ooooh, playground insults, how mature of you.

It does please me immensely that the ongoing recovery is driving you lot to such desperate levels of frustration you need to resort to childish insults.

Keep up the good work.

If we get a glut of properties at the same time reverse QE kicks in, increased transactions wont mean sh*t. It will just mean reduced properties are selling quickly.

:rotfl:

There will be no glut of properties, the banks will not force mass selloffs when it would only damage their balance sheets to do so. People deciding to move because prices have gone up and they're no longer in N.E. will also not cause a glut, as they will all also need to buy somewhere new. Nor will QE be reversed until liquidity is at a point in the economy which can sustain it.

The crash is over. Oh sure, we may still see some small fluctuations, but the recovery is firmly underway now.

Deal with it.

HammerSmashedFace

chucky wrote: »

it's that word 'if' again - the favorite word of those that hope for Armageddon

if i won the lottery - it's not going to happen...

There are different type of 'ifs' though, 'if' I win the lotto is a big 'if' (14,000,000 to 1). 'If' TSHTF when two unsustainable policies that are masking the problem not fixing are reversed/withdrawn is a much smaller 'if'.

Pyramid schemes are always unsustainable, it's only how far you've managed to drag yourself into it as to what effects you get, obviously the higher up the better, they are still fundamentally a bad thing though, regardless of where you are.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

This should be required reading for anyone moaning about approval levels.

Actuals are in green. The number of approvals required for price neutrality are in red. So long as the green line stays above the red line, prices will stay in an upwards trend. (although small seasonal fluctuations are possible at any time)

From houseprices.uk.net......

chucky

HammerSmashedFace wrote: »

Pyramid schemes are always unsustainable

that's right - it looks like the HPC has come and gone in nominal terms.

in real terms it doesn't matter how much high prices drop because in real terms your disposable income is reduced too so the opportunity looks to have been missed by many to get that property.