BBC: Scottish Property Prices Reach All Time High

DaddyBear

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Very coincidental that it was Dec (last month) of 2005 you considered buying and that you want to stretch the statistics to June 2006. A £20k difference between the 6 months.

Still, even letting you stretch your dates to make it look better, the stats from June 2006 £ 195,444 and Oct 2010 was £222,549

http://www.ros.gov.uk/pdfs/la_jun06.pdf

http://www.ros.gov.uk/pdfs/local_authorities_oct_2010.pdf

So your property would still be worth between £27k and £47k more than it was in Dec 05 / Jun 06 and you wouldn't have been renting for those 5 years

Not to mention the fact they he could have got a bloody good mortgage back then.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Pimperne1 wrote: »

So it was a bit of a bad move not buying in 2005 when you could have?

DaddyBear wrote: »

Not to mention the fact they he could have got a bloody good mortgage back then.

Wonder why it's so obvious to everyone but geneer......:cool:

Pimperne1

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wonder why it's so obvious to everyone but geneer......:cool:

Possibly because the earliest date anyone can pin him having the capacity to buy is Dec 05. If he went looking then it would be winter and he probably wouldn't have found anything until the following October then the person wouldn't have wanted to move out until the following spring then it would have taken about 12 months for the sale to appear on LR so actually his purchase date wouldn't have been when first could have bought (ie Dec 05) its more like April 08 for LR purposes.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Very coincidental that it was Dec (last month) of 2005 you considered buying and that you want to stretch the statistics to June 2006. A £20k difference between the 6 months.

Not so much coincidental as common sense.
ROS lags at least 3 months, if not more.
And anyone suggesting that its possible to find, survey, bid and complete a house purchase in one day is an idiot.

Are you an idiot light? :cool:

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Still, even letting you stretch your dates to make it look better, the stats from June 2006 £ 195,444 and Oct 2010 was £222,549

http://www.ros.gov.uk/pdfs/la_jun06.pdf

http://www.ros.gov.uk/pdfs/local_authorities_oct_2010.pdf

So your property would still be worth between £27k and £47k more than it was in Dec 05 / Jun 06 and you wouldn't have been renting for those 5 years

But lighty, sweetheart, its not october.
And hey, perhaps you've been missing the often repeated understanding that stats for the bulk of this year have been skewed into meaninglessness by the edinburgh townhouses.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=39216254&postcount=49

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1914849

It seems that hamish has, cos whenever it comes up he's no where to be seen. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

(Its the internet equivalent of the milk bottles piling up, which is why I pop over here to see if he's alright. Just being a responsible citizen )

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Possibly because the earliest date anyone can pin him having the capacity to buy is Dec 05.

It really is quite funny.
Here I am pointing out how, in the wake of systemic collapse in the global financial markets and the associated asset price crash, a handful of fudiots are forced to degenerate matters into a sort of arbitrary dance off to gain any traction.

Then heres one of the said fudiots, after 3 to 4 years of the same BS, desperately attempting to realign said dance off to some amorphous point where I had the "capacity to buy".

You really couldn't make it up. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

Not so much coincidental as common sense.
ROS lags at least 3 months, if not more.
And anyone suggesting that its possible to find, survey, bid and complete a house purchase in one day is an idiot.

Are you an idiot light? :cool:

It's not possible all within a day, however I have this as a personal example.

Phone the EA to request a viewing at 10:30 to be told it went to closing at 12:30.
Made a decision despite not viewing or having a survey done to put in an offer subject to survey, why, because I had seen a similar property only six months previously so knew the layout / sizes, could see online the pictures (so knew it needed modernising) and more comforting, knew that there were four other bidders for the property, so knew there couldn't be much wrong structrarily as it would have showed up on their reports (also having the back out of making my offer subject to survey.

What happened? We won, by a couple of hundred pounds (it pays to do your market research and know the valuation (based on the previous sales in the street))

We then instructed the survey to be completed and all was exchanged within a month.

Your requirement to stretch out data reeks not only of desperation but a need to "think" you are right, despite facts pointing to the contrary.

geneer wrote: »

But lighty, sweetheart, its not october.

I'm 1) not your sweetheart and 2) the October figures are the latest released.
I'm not one for fantasizing about data not yet known.

Let's remind yourself of the monthly data for the last (near) 4 years



So you see, trying to infer the data lags 3 months makes no difference. In general in my opinion, Scottish property has on average stagnated for the last 3 years.

That said you were talking about late 2005, so you can see there has been an increase since then

geneer wrote: »

And hey, perhaps you've been missing the often repeated understanding that stats for the bulk of this year have been skewed into meaninglessness by the edinburgh townhouses.

I've not kept a close eye on the Edinburgh market (although I do know someone who sold there recently)

Your link interestingly states

This should mean that early next year we’ll see prices in Edinburgh come back down to levels seen at the start of 2010

So prices are expected to lower to early 2010 figures, which at best case for you would show prices the same as they were 5 years earlier when you chose "common sense" not to buy.

To me it seems your best case scenraio will mean that prices have not inflated away whilst you still had 5 years of rent to pay in that time.

Doesn't make good common sense to me, but that's the difference between us I guess.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'm not your sweetheart

Oh you most certainly are darling.
We've only just met and already you appear to care very deeply about me.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Blah blah blah blah blah and all was exchanged within a month.

So it only took four months until is showed up in the land reg then.
Gosh. Thats total undermined my point!:T

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Your requirement to stretch out data reeks not only of desperation but a need to "think" you are right, despite facts pointing to the contrary.

...Typed MrLight after desperately creating an extended description of an obviously atypical buying experience in order to “think” he is right. :rotfl:

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

the October figures are the latest released.

If only there were some other leading index explicitly referenced in my post.
Wouldn't it be groovy if prices were tanking. :cool:

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'm not one for fantasizing about data not yet known.

If only there were some other leading index explicitly referenced in my post
Wouldn't it be groovy if prices were tanking. :cool:

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

So prices are expected to lower to early 2010 figures, which at best case for you would show prices the same as they were 5 years earlier

Ah there you go. BINGO! Some focused and painstaking research there Lighty. You really do care!
Who's my gorgeous girl?

So no change in nominal prices you say.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

To me it seems your best case scenraio will mean that prices have not inflated away whilst you still had 5 years of rent to pay in that time.

Rather depends on whether you actually understand that inflation is.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Oh dear! Better check your working lighty.

(Lets not consider significant changes in circumstance, such as wage rises or the impact of saving up a significant deposit in the interim might have...your beautiful little head couldn't take it)

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Doesn't make good common sense to me, but that's the difference between us I guess.

I thought the difference was that you don't like to engage in

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

quarallling

. Ah well.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

I thought the difference was that you don't like to engage in

quarrelling

. Ah well.

I don't and it seems impossible to discuss facts, figures and debate in a reasonable manner with you.
For that reason I'm out .

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

Oh you most certainly are darling.
We've only just met and already you appear to care very deeply about me.


So it only took four months until is showed up in the land reg then.
Gosh. Thats total undermined my point!:T


...Typed MrLight after desperately creating an extended description of an obviously atypical buying experience in order to “think” he is right. :rotfl:




If only there were some other leading index explicitly referenced in my post.
Wouldn't it be groovy if prices were tanking. :cool:



If only there were some other leading index explicitly referenced in my post
Wouldn't it be groovy if prices were tanking. :cool:




Ah there you go. BINGO! Some focused and painstaking research there Lighty. You really do care!
Who's my gorgeous girl?

So no change in nominal prices you say.



Rather depends on whether you actually understand that inflation is.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Oh dear! Better check your working lighty.

(Lets not consider significant changes in circumstance, such as wage rises or the impact of saving up a significant deposit in the interim might have...your beautiful little head couldn't take it)






I thought the difference was that you don't like to engage in . Ah well.

Oh oh, you've been "Geneered". Best not to bog him down with facts.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I don't and it seems impossible to discuss facts, figures and debate in a reasonable manner with you.
For that reason I'm out .

Out again eh? Rather thought you might be. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

See you later doll.