Latest RoS, Scotland Prices Rising Strongly......

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Scotland ---
Jan 2010 £149,456,
Feb 2010 £150,738, + 0.8% MoM, 6.1% YoY


Aberdeen---
Jan 2010 £167,719,
Feb 2010 £172,301, + 2.7% MoM + 12.3% YoY

Edinburgh---
Jan 2010 £209,868,
Feb 2010 £228,268 + 8.7% MoM + 20% YoY

Glasgow---
Jan 2010 £130,615,
Feb 2010 £134,391 + 2.8% MoM +9.4% YoY

Bit surprising to see prices rising so strongly in February to be honest, as our spring bounce doesn't normally kick in properly til April.

But it works for me.:beer:

Running_Horse

I'm as obsessed with house prices as the next homeowner. But once in a while it does one good to read this forum and feel like a normal human being. Not for one minute doubting the veracity of your figures, but really, who gives a flying f**k? Spring is upon us; go for a walk, talk to a lady about love, read a book, go canoeing. Life is too short.

smamst

Running_Horse wrote: »

I'm as obsessed with house prices as the next homeowner. But once in a while it does one good to read this forum and feel like a normal human being. Not for one minute doubting the veracity of your figures, but really, who gives a flying f**k? Spring is upon us; go for a walk, talk to a lady about love, read a book, go canoeing. Life is too short.

Hamish can't he is a BTL invester and has so much money invested in Aberdeen, to him/her it's like taking candy off a baby. All this talk of a house price crash will wipe him/her out.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

smamst wrote: »

Hamish can't he is a BTL invester and has so much money invested in Aberdeen, to him/her it's like taking candy off a baby. All this talk of a house price crash will wipe him/her out.

If you want to slag me off, could you at least make an effort to get your facts straight?

I don't own a BTL, and prices could fall by 75% without putting me in negative equity overall.

But other than that........ :rolleyes:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Running_Horse wrote: »

but really, who gives a flying f**k? .

So......

Why would you be reading a "debate house prices" forum, if you're not expecting to read posts about house prices?

Get a grip man. It's a house price thread, in a house price forum.

If you want to discuss spring, romance or any other random drivel, try mumsnet.....

DaddyBear

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

If you want to slag me off, could you at least make an effort to get your facts straight?

I don't own a BTL, and prices could fall by 75% without putting me in negative equity overall.

But other than that........ :rolleyes:

That actually makes things worse. At least if you had a big vested interest in house price rises I'd have a bit of respect for you. But posting at 3am on a bank holiday weekend when you have no VI in what you are posting is just plain weird.
Get a hobby.

Prudent

I am really confused.

According to this:
http://www.ros.gov.uk/public/news/press_release_flash/52week.pdf

Both Aberdeen city and the shire have had falls of 1.8 and 1.7 respectively over the last 52 week period.
A lot of areas in Scotland seem to be falling.

Generali

Prudent wrote: »

I am really confused.

According to this:
http://www.ros.gov.uk/public/news/press_release_flash/52week.pdf

Both Aberdeen city and the shire have had falls of 1.8 and 1.7 respectively over the last 52 week period.
A lot of areas in Scotland seem to be falling.

I think you're misreading the stats and I admit that I had to look twice.

I think the numbers you have are comparing the average price over the past 52 weeks against the same figure calculated last week. It's a bit of a weird statistic to apply to the housing market TBH as the data is just going to be a load of noise as the samples are so small:

http://www.ros.gov.uk/pdfs/localauthoritiesfeb2010.pdf

For the last week for which data are available, a little over 4,000 properties that qualify for the stats were sold in the whole of Scotland (single sales of houses or flats for between £20,000 and £1,000,000. In Aberdeen the figure is 263.

Try as I might, I can't find a link to Hamish_McTavish's statistics however as house prices rose by 10.1% in Aberdeen in 2009 (link) they seem reasonable.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

Try as I might, I can't find a link to Hamish_McTavish's statistics .

http://www.ros.gov.uk/professional/eservices/land_property_data/lpd_stats.html

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Prudent wrote: »

I am really confused.

According to this:
http://www.ros.gov.uk/public/news/press_release_flash/52week.pdf

Both Aberdeen city and the shire have had falls of 1.8 and 1.7 respectively over the last 52 week period.
A lot of areas in Scotland seem to be falling.

Generali is (almost) correct.

The 28 day and 52 week flash series, updated weekly, is actually comparing a rolling 28 day average or rolling 52 week average versus the previous rolling 28 day or previous 52 week period.

In the 52 week period you are referencing, the applicable dates for the Current 52 week period are 15/02/09 to 13/02/10. And for the Previous 52 week period, 17/02/08 to 14/02/09.

The 52 week series is an absolutely meaningless statistic for trying to establish current value, because it is simply an average of every price for the last year versus every price for the year before. The 28 day series is more current, but tends to be very noisy.

The monthly data points are far more accurate, and have a long history of comparables. You can go to the link I posted earlier and see the average house price in any area for any month going back many years.

Generali

I was trying to avoid using the term rolling average to avoid confusion, FWIW.

Having a look at the FAQs, it turns out that the figures are unweighted averages. There's no mix adjustment and so using the numbers to compare across time periods is basically meaningless. That can be seen by the extreme volatility of the figures - Aberdeen is up 10% on the year but down something like 7 or 8% on the quarter in the last quarterly figures,

That house prices in Aberdeen are up 12% on the year feels right: it's a bit more than the average across the UK and the dominant industry in the city is doing well. Using RoS figures to measure that is a poor way to measure it IMO.