December Nationwide MoM +0.4%

Really2

To add, prices went up around 2.5% in the first 6 months and fell back about 2.1%.

The nationwide data is about as flat as it gets, when was the last time there was a year with so little marginal change?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

What did the government do this year to preserve house prices?

As far as I can remember the government has done more to lower prices with spending cuts.

I am happy with my 2010 prediction, and expect a fall of 5-7% for 2011.

there has not been a big rise or a big fall, you cant expect prices to a flat line over a year. Prices hare virtually the same as the start of the year I am fairly sure no one who predicted prices to be virtually staganant YOY did not expect 0% MOM for 12 months.

It's just an example of how using one set of figures looks totally different to using another.

Wasn't saying that the government had propped up house prices, or indeed any business, just a simple analogy, really.

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

To add, prices went up around 2.5% in the first 6 months and fell back about 2.1%.

The nationwide data is about as flat as it gets, when was the last time there was a year with so little marginal change?

you'll get the "but they've fallen in real terms" next.

they haven't figured out that it hurts FTB's more than anyone else though...

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's just an example of how using one set of figures looks totally different to using another.

Wasn't saying that the government had propped up house prices, or indeed any business, just a simple analogy, really.

Lost me on that one? So the analogy was irrlevent?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's just an example of how using one set of figures looks totally different to using another.

facts are facts - spin it as much as you like but you can't change facts.

4 of the indices are flat or show price rises YoY.
the exception is the Halifax that shows a 2%/3% fall without the December figures.

feel free to select the Halifax as how things are just because it's slightly negative for the year.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Lost me on that one? So the analogy was irrlevent?

Not irrelevant, but simply that, an analogy. Not an actual event which took place.

We've been here before when I've tried to use an analogy and it's been drilled down into only to suggest such an analogy didn't actually exist, which I knew all along and why I suggested it was an analogy, instead of a real life example.

I'm simply saying that YOY figures can show something, but all that happened inbetween is stripped out. So long as the start and end point end up the same, it can be called stagnant.

I'm not arguing anything. Just stating I don't think we have actually seen stagnation in 2010. From point to point, yes. Actual stagnation...no. I know what you guys are saying, solely on a point to point basis, yes, stagnation.

I don't think it needs to be argued. I think we all know what each other means!

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm simply saying that YOY figures can show something, but all that happened inbetween is stripped out. So long as the start and end point end up the same, it can be called stagnant.

But YoY and looking over the 12 months the nationwide has been virtually stagnant. I can't say if prices had fallen 10% and there was a couple of 2% rise in the end I would not argue those who had predicted a 10% falls were wrong.
They were asked what they thought prices would be for the year, and they would be right.
They were never asked to predict every month or meaning as their was a couple of rises they were ignoring the data and were wrong?
If someone wants to predict every month next year they can go ahead I presume that daily data would come in to play though if they were correct.;)

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm simply saying that YOY figures can show something, but all that happened inbetween is stripped out. So long as the start and end point end up the same, it can be called stagnant.

I'm not arguing anything. Just stating I don't think we have actually seen stagnation in 2010. From point to point, yes. Actual stagnation...no. I know what you guys are saying, solely on a point to point basis, yes, stagnation.

I don't think it needs to be argued. I think we all know what each other means!

stagnation in economic terms means stagnation over a prolonged period (a year for example).

you can't look at the monthly data to measure stagnation it doesn't work like that.
stagnation is a description at a macro level.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

stagnation in economic terms means stagnation over a prolonged period (a year for example).

you can't look at the monthly data to measure stagnation it doesn't work like that.
stagnation is a description at a macro level.

Yes I know, I've referenced exactly that in my post.

However, seen this item on the BBC news and channel 4 news. And both items didn't mention stagnation. Both items mentioned volitile year.

That's what I'm talking about.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes I know, I've referenced exactly that in my post.

However, seen this item on the BBC news and channel 4 news. And both items didn't mention stagnation. Both items mentioned volitile year.

That's what I'm talking about.

I posted above price rose around 2.5% and fell around 2.1%.

It was not a volatile year at all most probably the least volatile year in the last 10 years.

The only volatile data was Halifax October, which looks like an anomaly in their data as it was not replicated on any other index, and it saw a sharp correction the following month.