London property falling by 72% a year!

bendix

macaque wrote: »

Er .....wrong! If the rate of fall is £18k/q then the % falls in subsequent months will get progressively larger

Er . . . . . . . wrong!

The fall - as stated in your article - is 18% per quarter, not a fixed £18k. It expressly states that the properties fell 18% in a quarter.

At the end of the quarter, they are worth 18% less than at the start. If they continue to fall18% again in the second quarter, then they will be worth 18% of the new (smaller) value.

Sorry, monkeyman, but you're making a bit of a fool of yourself on this one.

macaque_2

What the Article said:

'Prime' house prices may crash harder than the rest
I've written several times about the idiocy of thinking that prime London house prices can somehow avoid the slowdown hitting the rest of the market, most recently in last weeks editor's letter, which subscribers can read here........
It seems perfectly obvious to me that with bonuses and mortgages thin on the ground, taxes on the up, and a double-dip recession very close indeed, not even the richest of foreign buyers can single-handedly keep the market up for long. The numbers out over the last few months have backed this up, showing prime London prices moving in tandem with the rest of the market.
However, I have just also been sent some even more interesting numbers from estate agent John D Wood. These track not completion but exchange prices of London houses, and so are much more up-to-date than most. They also prove that prime prices are not remotely resilient.

How the bulls replied:


Sorry, monkeyman, but you're making a bit of a fool of yourself on this one.
Bendix


Nonsense threads like this should be closed. Don't feed the troll.....
Mr Grumpie


Actually even 4 quarters at 18% wouldn't make 72%. It makes about 45% Macaque maths = FAIL.
julieq

So extrapolating down by the 70% club is fine, whereas extrapolating up by the Scottish fanboys club is pure lunacy?
michaels

Oh dear macaque, perhaps spend more time getting educated rather than wasting your time here.
Joeskeppi

The sad thing is that the uber-bears don't seem to realise their arguments and faux logic are as damaging and ludicrous to their cause as the uber-bulls.
Bendix

You must expect mental posts like this today. The bears have had a hell of a beating. All the graphs and excuses won't make them better. House prices rose today. Bitter pill and all that.
Sibley

This thread is nonsence.
Tomterm8

Ridiculous thread this.
FTBFun

Oh dear Monkey boy. Linton has just debunked your fairly obviously flawed 'calculation' rather comprehensively.....
Pete111

If you want serious answers to a thread perhaps you shouldn't open it with a load of idiotic drivel.
Joeskeppi .... again

As it happens the OP was based on a serious article. Of course my reference to 72% was a bit of hyperbole. It is interesting to note however that not one single bull was able to contribute a thoughtful comment on the main story. You reacted was a group of passengers on the Titanic arguing about the shape of the hole in hull as if this would somehow stop the ship from sinking.

julieq

It's not that difficult to debunk the article either. It's by Merryn Somerset Webb :rotfl:

System

If you want serious answers to a thread perhaps you shouldn't open it with a load of idiotic drivel.

bendix

Two things.

1) I'm not a bull. On the contrary. I think house prices are over valued and due for a substantial correction. Does that make me a bear? I dunno. I prefer to think of myself as a house price agnostic.

2) My post was debunking not the bull or bear argument, but to pick you up on some dodgy maths.