How many would buy more than one house if prices fell 60%?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's great! I can say such stuff as "I like ladies" now without it being twisted into

C: "Ha, graham said he likes ladyboys"
G: Where did I say that?
C: You said you like ladies. Ladyboys could be classed as ladies, therefore you like ladyboys
G: !!!!!! are you on about
C: You don't understand....again.
G: I do understand, but tell me how I said I liked ladyboys
C: No point, you won't understand, you never understand.
G: Come off it, you have twisted again
C: well done on ruining yet another thread with your chewybacca technique.

you cannot hide from the truth - you get shown up for what you are :wall::wall:

chucky

fc123 wrote: »

I am 99% sure he's on holiday.

yup - was on holiday. was very nice.

thanks for the concern and i'm very glad to see nothing has changed on MSE

chucky

brit1234 wrote: »

That one has got the bubble distortion which on a 30 year greatly throws it out. You need to go back further in time to get more acurate data. If you used the last ten years the average would be far higher, if you used the last 100 it would be a lot lower.

sorry Brit but you don't know what you're talking about

Charterhouse

An exponential trend line is perhaps the most stupid thing I have ever encountered.

IveSeenTheLight

Charterhouse wrote: »

An exponential trend line is perhaps the most stupid thing I have ever encountered.

Lets say your mum and dad put £1000 away in the bank when you were born earning 5% every year.
If you map this out in a graph you will get an exponential line. Why? because your interest is compounded.

The longer the time period or the greater the interest / inflation, the more curved the line appears

Similarly with all things inflation related, the compound effect means that the line created will be an exponential line

Hopefully the clarifies how the long term trend for house prices explains why an exponential trend line occurs when utilising an averaged yearly inflation throughout the period.

N1AK

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We can do better than that.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-533531-cost-of-country-living-soars.do

If anyone feels like calculating the percentage increase, feel free.

Mindboggling.

For £15 to become £4,500,000 over 924 years it would be increasing by 1.374% year on year. Hardly an astounding rate of increase.

Based on the 1926 sales price it increased at 0.83% during that period and then at 9.97% from 1926 to present!

I'm not sure how useful any of this is, I doubt 10% YoY for 80 years is a result purely of HPI chances are changes to the property etc have had a sizable affect.

Charterhouse

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Lets say your mum and dad put £1000 away in the bank when you were born earning 5% every year.
If you map this out in a graph you will get an exponential line. Why? because your interest is compounded.

The longer the time period or the greater the interest / inflation, the more curved the line appears

Similarly with all things inflation related, the compound effect means that the line created will be an exponential line

Hopefully the clarifies how the long term trend for house prices explains why an exponential trend line occurs when utilising an averaged yearly inflation throughout the period.

Err. The graph was REAL house prices. Inflation has been stripped out. /facepalm

Blacklight

Charterhouse wrote: »

An exponential trend line is perhaps the most stupid thing I have ever encountered.

Perhaps you could try plotting your annual salary on a graph and let us know how stupid you think that exponential trend line is.

Strange that it looks exactly like the one for house prices over the years isn't it? I wonder why that could be.

Charterhouse

Blacklight wrote: »

Perhaps you could try plotting your annual salary on a graph and let us know how stupid you think that exponential trend line is.

Strange that it looks exactly like the one for house prices over the years isn't it? I wonder why that could be.

Haha if I plotted my annual salary on a graph I'd be trolled out of here thanks. Also, individual wage data is completely and utterly irrelevant what is relevant is the population and that data is pretty smooth and well correlated to goods inflation. Just because people individually tend to earn more as they age doesn't necessarily mean house prices should go through the roof, it just means people buy bigger houses as they get older. I'm not sure you understand your own point...

Blacklight

Charterhouse wrote: »

Also, individual wage data is completely and utterly irrelevant what is relevant is the population and that data is pretty smooth and well correlated to goods inflation.

No, the only thing that's relevant are the wages of individuals who are likely to buy their own home (people ready to settle in one place for a reasonable period and in stable employment/career) or those that already have (also in long term stable employment).

Your assumption that those individuals wages only increase by inflation as they progress though their lives and careers is clearly incorrect.