We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
House prices fell by 0.5% in July - Nationwide
Comments
-
When_is_the_reset? wrote: »The trend must only be the trend because of the bubble in property prices - so if we didn't have the massive increases the trend would be lower.
The trend teaks into accound the peaks (bubbles) and the troughs (corrections) (see the area below the trend line) over the last thirty years.
Therefore the trend is correct including the last two cycles.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »The trend teaks into accound the peaks (bubbles) and the troughs (corrections) (see the area below the trend line) over the last thirty years.
Therefore the trend is correct including the last two cycles.
So I was right - the trend is dictated by the bubbles.
If there was no bubble the trend would be lower. So saying it is returning to trend is strange because if there was no bubble the trend would be lower.
It all seems like nonsense to me.0 -
Blacklight wrote: »Not really.
60/20 = 3
180/60 = 3
No idea what you are saying here but I can see with my own eyes that the two peaks are different and the scales on the two separate graphs are different.
Thanks anyway.0 -
When_is_the_reset? wrote: »So I was right - the trend is dictated by the bubbles.
It all seems like nonsense to me.
The trend is not dictated by the bubbles.
Your looking at it from only one side.
Why discount the period above the trend and only wish to look at the period below the trend?When_is_the_reset? wrote: »If there was no bubble the trend would be lower. So saying it is returning to trend is strange because if there was no bubble the trend would be lower.
And if there was no corrections, the trend would be higher
And it seems like this has been very similarly questioned, argued and responded to beforeWhen_is_the_reset? wrote: »It all seems like nonsense to me.
:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
When_is_the_reset? wrote: »No idea what you are saying here but I can see with my own eyes that the two peaks are different and the scales on the two separate graphs are different.
Thanks anyway.
1980-1990 prices went up 3x
2000-2010 prices went up 3x
Of course the numbers are different as prices didn't fall by 3x between 1990-2000.
Although for some reason, some people expect them do exactly that between 2010-2011.
Personally I think they will do nothing, then go up 3x between 2020-2030.0 -
When_is_the_reset? wrote: »No idea what you are saying here but I can see with my own eyes that the two peaks are different and the scales on the two separate graphs are different.
Thanks anyway.
Look at any compounded graph.
you'll get the same.
£100 earning 3% per month in month 1 would earn £3.
After 100 months, the earnings increases to £57
Same graph, same scale, but the compound effect makes the later timeframe appear to be higher than earlier in the graph
Here it is in graph format if it helps
[pic tool not working]
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4809/80622127.jpg:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
A chink of light is entering into the murky depths - thanks.
But what good does it do to look at two periods of rapid growth and ignore what is happening inbetween? Surely it must make more sense to look at as long a period as possible?0 -
When_is_the_reset? wrote: »A chink of light is entering into the murky depths - thanks.
But what good does it do to look at two periods of rapid growth and ignore what is happening inbetween? Surely it must make more sense to look at as long a period as possible?
It does not ignore the area in between, it takes it into the calculation.
Your right, it's better to have a long term to compare and that's what the long term real house price trend does. It compares over the last 30 years
This has shown over the last 30 years (peaks and troughs) what the average annual per annum trend line is.
They are saying that on average there was a 2.9% per annum trend in the real terms house price:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
-
might be worth a bump. going by rightomve stats it looks like nationwide under estimated the size of fall in house prices0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards