Mortgage Lending for new purchase up 19%.

IveSeenTheLight

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

ISTL - If you plot the adjusted price for 1977 - Q1 1990 and then get excel to put on an exponential line and then lay on top of that the same data series extended to today and put another trend line on for the whole data set, you will see that the trend line is noticeably above where it sits today for that shortened data series.

Re-reading this, I'd agree.
The trend line would have been higher in this instance.
The reason is because it wouldn't have included the correction of the 90's.
So your saying the trend line is pulled up by HPI which is true.
I'm saying it's also pulled down by the corrections.

Hence we get the trend line as it is today calculated over the last 30 years

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Re-reading this, I'd agree.
The trend line would have been higher in this instance.
The reason is because it wouldn't have included the correction of the 90's.
So your saying the trend line is pulled up by HPI which is true.
I'm saying it's also pulled down by the corrections.

Hence we get the trend line as it is today calculated over the last 30 years

Which is still pulled up.

All I was saying is the trend line, moves with the data. Therefore, on a line which is curved, and being dragged up, it doesn't show "normal" prices. Neither does it show where prices "should be" over a set period. It simply displays what has been happening.

You said I was ignoring the correction. I wasn't. Theres no need for me to mention it really, as with the correction included, the trend is still pulled up, hence the curvature.

The trend line, does not show neutrality or normality in terms of affordability. It just shows you whats happened over a set period.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The trend line, does not show neutrality or normality in terms of affordability.

Graham, I never said that it showed neutrality or normality in terms of affordability.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It just shows you whats happened over a set period.

I'm glad you can agree that it shows the trend over the last 30 years which includes the peaks and the troughs.

Surely therefore you can see that we are on or very near that long term trend

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Graham, I never said that it showed neutrality or normality in terms of affordability.


I'm glad you can agree that it shows the trend over the last 30 years which includes the peaks and the troughs.

Surely therefore you can see that we are on or very near that long term trend

No, but you were using it as a response to my affordability level post....of which, one can only assume, you were stating they have reached the affordability level, as they have reached the trend line.

If thats not the case, I have no idea why you felt the need to bring the trend line out in response to my affordability statement?

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, but you were using it as a response to my affordability level post....of which, one can only assume, you were stating they have reached the affordability level, as they have reached the trend line.

If thats not the case, I have no idea why you felt the need to bring the trend line out in response to my affordability statement?

I replied to this

Originally Posted by Graham_Devon
When they reach an affordable level, they will stop falling. Without excessive lending, it will become a stable market.

It was your statement that said they would stop falling when they reached an affordable level.
I merely showed that they stopped falling when it reached the long term trend and roughly seems to have stability as it has now followed for the last year the long term trend

Really2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I replied to this



It was your statement that said they would stop falling when they reached an affordable level.
I merely showed that they stopped falling when it reached the long term trend and roughly seems to have stability as it has now followed for the last year the long term trend

Please note you are not allowed to use 2009 on as it does not fit in with the OP's view on the OP's statement. Even though it has been the same in the previous crash.

Procrastinator333

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Re-reading this, I'd agree.
The trend line would have been higher in this instance.
The reason is because it wouldn't have included the correction of the 90's.
So your saying the trend line is pulled up by HPI which is true.
I'm saying it's also pulled down by the corrections.

Hence we get the trend line as it is today calculated over the last 30 years

Yes, and the trend line as it stands today is a fact and not open for debate.

I guess to rephrase my point, the trend line will suffer the greatest volatility around the most recent data point as new data gets added. That volatility can be huge. It also tends to support wherever you are within the cycle.

So if it was q1 90, you could look at the trend and think great, we are on the long term up trend, all is well. Equally, in 1996, 1997, you could look at the trend line and think oh well, prices are pretty flat, little growth, no rush.

The trend supports the most recent event. In my opinion the graph is not that helpful for considering the recent history unless it is taken with this pinch of salt.

Procrastinator333

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Set up an account with imageshack or photobucket.

Upload your pic. Get the URL.

Insert into MSE post.

Thanks for the pointers hamish, much appreciated. I will still put up these graphs later (on phone atm).

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Every time I see that graph published again it makes me chuckle.

I'll refrain from commenting as requested. As you put it earlier today it's "rear view mirror" and the events that occured during the timespan of the graph have no bearing as to future price movements.

quite... but it's good that you''ve taken another tangent from the nonsense post below

Thrugelmir wrote: »

A long way from the boom years that drove prices upwards.

i have to say it but nice work :T

IveSeenTheLight

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Yes, and the trend line as it stands today is a fact and not open for debate.

I guess to rephrase my point, the trend line will suffer the greatest volatility around the most recent data point as new data gets added. That volatility can be huge. It also tends to support wherever you are within the cycle.

So if it was q1 90, you could look at the trend and think great, we are on the long term up trend, all is well. Equally, in 1996, 1997, you could look at the trend line and think oh well, prices are pretty flat, little growth, no rush.

The trend supports the most recent event. In my opinion the graph is not that helpful for considering the recent history unless it is taken with this pinch of salt.

I don't think it would.

If the trend line was maintained over the same 30 year period, although you would see a slight variance, it would still be roughly a similar trend.

You chose 1996 / 1997, but what was house prices 30 years earlier in 1966 / 1967?

I'm sure the trend would show an increase from those levels

The trend line shows that over the long term (30 years) house prices rise and by what yearly averaged compounded inflation.