Mortgage Lending for new purchase up 19%.

chucky

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

But I don't think it is sensible to look at the trend line and say we are on the trend line, that is therefore support for prices staying where they are or growing.

That logic wouldn't have worked too well in 2004/5 when the trend line last crossed the actual either.

I guess to sum it up in a one liner (should have possibly just said this and left it this). Yes we are on the trend, but the trend is not fixed in place and in only a few years today may actually be significantly above or below the trend line.

there are too many other factors to use the trend line - it's a good guide but not 100% accurate.
i'm not sure what the point is being made about shortening the time - 30 years is a better indicator.

if i've understood you right are you looking at moving averages like you would in shares 50 day MA or 200 day MA as in EMA or SMA?
if i haven't, apologies - i couldn't be bothered to read 8 pages of the usual...

ps. why isn't the Today line there?

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That all you got on all my post?

You didn't mind talking all about the if before, infact, you made quite a big thing of it, hence why I said your "if" as you had capitalised it and everyfink, but suddenly now, were back to mr muddle and all of a sudden you don't want to talk about the "if"

Anyway, what happened to:

I'm not debating with you.
I simply corrected your mistake of saying it was my if when it was your if.
I've seen you use this tactic before, so in the words of Duncan Bannatyne

DervProf

Bleed wrote: »

2 sets of people, just squabbling, with no hope of any kind of conclusion.

Your just left thinking 'What is the point ?'

2 sets of people, just squabbling, that is true.

No hope of any conlusion, again, true.


Football - 22 players trying to kicking a ball into a net. The only conclusion is that one set of players might put the ball in the net more times than the other.

Parliment - (mostly) 2 sets of people squabbling, with no hope of conclusion.

If you are left thinking "what is the point ?" after visiting this forum, try thinking about life itself. You`ll probably come to the same conclusion (no pun intended).

Procrastinator333

chucky wrote: »

there are too many other factors to use the trend line - it's a good guide but not 100% accurate.
i'm not sure what the point is being made about shortening the time - 30 years is a better indicator.

if i've understood you right are you looking at moving averages like you would in shares 50 day MA or 200 day MA as in EMA or SMA?
if i haven't, apologies - i couldn't be bothered to read 8 pages of the usual...

ps. why isn't the Today line there?

The graph you have posted is the real data up to today with a fictional continuation that then falls off. You therefore can't see the red line as it is completely underneath the blue line.

Red line = actual

Blue line = actual + fictional extension

The dates are a little out of line, so it looks like 2011 is actually today. But up to that point it is just the actual data.

I'm just trying to use this graph to show that the trend as at today would look very different IF there are falls to follow.

Todays point on the trend line is also the point that is subject to the greatest volatility.

We are on the trend line - that is a fact. But in my opinion, that is not a reason for prices to rise, fall or stay the same.

I'm not talking about moving averages. And i don't want to use a shorter timeframe - On every one of those I use all of the data available. I looked up the data from HPC and their graph index. If there is another source that tracks this data further back, please let me know, but that starts 1977 so I used that. The longer the series the better.

I just wanted to show that the trend line looks very different within the same set of data - it justs depends on the point at which you sit.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Bleed wrote: »

2 sets of people, just squabbling, with no hope of any kind of conclusion.

But that's why we come here.....

Your just left thinking 'What is the point ?'

The point is to debate people with opposing views.

There can never be any other point for a board set up to debate house prices.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

. If there is another source that tracks this data further back, please let me know, but that starts 1977 so I used that. The longer the series the better.
.

Quarterly since 1952......

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical.htm

Select centre bar, and pick series you want.

Procrastinator333

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Quarterly since 1952......

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical.htm

Select centre bar, and pick series you want.

Am I missing something:

I follow the link, select UK house prices adjusted for inflation, hit go and the excel file it downloands only goes back to 1975?

How do I get it back to 1952?

EDIT:

Ah, it does nominal back to 1952, but not real.

EDIT EDIT:

It only goes back to 1975 because the RPI measure they use only started then:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=229&More=N&All=Y

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But that's why we come here.....



The point is to debate people with opposing views.

There can never be any other point for a board set up to debate house prices.

Spot on.

If you don`t like this forum, don`t read/join it.

If you think this forum is a waste of time, you`ve wasted your time reading it - don`t waste more time by posting here.

OK Hamish, back to the 'squabbling'.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

DervProf wrote: »

OK Hamish, back to the 'squabbling'.

:rotfl:

ICBA tonight.

Drinking a lovely limited edition 18 y/o Glenrothes. Far too warm and mellow to get into serious arguments.