British House Prices Probably Won’t Fall This Year, RICS Says

Mr.Brown_4

What a weird chart. It's lost me. Is it cricket shots around the Lords ground?

wymondham

For what it's worth I recon house prices will fall this year, and quite considerably... no real reason other than a hunch!

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

About 85,000 mortgage approvals looks about historically normal to me for low HPI.
So could you anwer the question relating to aprovals increasing without 100%+ mortgages now?

That was easy wasn't it. Well done, 2 pages of arguing to just tell me a simple figure you were relating too!!

And I have already answered your question. I have never claimed that approvals cannot rise. So I'm really not sure what you want me to say here, or how you want me to answer?

All I said was I did not believe transactions could reach pre bust levels (2005 onwards) without 100 and 125% mortgages etc. I still stand by that, and if you read back, will see that's all I have said.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

My answer is I never ever said, implied, or stated that they cannot rise. I was simply asking what normal is, as I have a problem believeing they can rise to the normality of 2003 onwards.

That is your normal

But what you have said because you have forgotten.:o

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What's normal?

100 - 125% mortgages? Because that's what this "normality" was based on before the crash.

I don't think that's coming back.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are ignoring how transaction levels got to where they were.

It's not hysterical, it's simply looking at the whole market. You said normal, I asked you what normal was. You say transaction levels.

I say how can transaction levels get back to that "normality" without the prodcuts enabling people to transact. i.e. mortgages. It's merely a question.

Doh..............

Graham_Devon

I apologise, can't make head nor tail of what you are saying or implying there.

Mr.Brown_4

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I apologise, can't make head nor tail of what you are saying or implying there.

Is this some kind of setup? Are you two the new MSE Chuckle brothers?

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All I said was I did not believe transactions could reach pre bust levels (2005 onwards) without 100 and 125% mortgages etc. I still stand by that, and if you read back, will see that's all I have said.

Well 2 years have just gone from you 7:57pm post then.

You were the only one who came out as post 2003 as normal so all you have done is derail a post just for someone to prove that 2003 was not normal, You then go on to say you don't think the boom was normal.:T

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I apologise, can't make head nor tail of what you are saying or implying there.

Sorry, I used your quotes.:p

(its obviously showing you what you have written, or what you say you have not written.)

But Graham how about the article????????????????????????????

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Well 2 years have just gone from you 7:57pm post then.

This doesn't help my understanding.

You were the only one who came out as post 2003 as normal so all you have done is derail a post just for someone to prove that 2003 was not normal, You then go on to say you don't think the boom was normal.:T

Oh right. You think me ASKING YOU what was normal and saying I don't think normal can be based on pre bust levels of 2003 onwards was me saying those levels are normal?

I see your issue now. But sorry, I really can't help you.

stueyhants

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This doesn't help my understanding.

Oh right. You think me ASKING YOU what was normal and saying I don't think normal can be based on pre bust levels of 2003 onwards was me saying those levels are normal?

I see your issue now. But sorry, I really can't help you.

I wouldn't worry Graham, any sane person reading this thread can see what a reasonable question you asked. The responses from the usual suspects is pretty much par for the course. Sad really, I think you do well not to resort to the same childish level.