The absolute fallacy of the average bull argument.

geneer

Rinoa wrote: »

Indeed.

But I guess when you're:

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]...you 'll resort to any tactic in masking the relentless truth of your situation. :rotfl: [/FONT]

Oh Look its HPCs Columbo.
Is this where you're hiding.
We don't see you around much on Creditcrunch any more.
Nothing to do with your abject humiliation was it.

geneer

julieq wrote: »

Hamish has been spot on with his analysis and predictions throughout the crisis.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:And thats the point I stopped reading.

geneer

julieq wrote: »

To be fair, the people who bring up the Aberdeen market are invariably the bears. Hamish answers questions when asked, but usually makes general points.

Except of course Spamish hasn't addressed the question in hand.

Oh, of course he's elected to discussed his home town, as he is regularly prone to do, particularly when prices are dropping in most other locations.

However, he seems to have neglected to respond to the salient point. Once can only assume thats because the reality is so astoundingly obvious that you would be unable to argue against it without appearing to be a very silly boy indeed.

But I can't help wondering if this realisation will stop Hamish from monkey dancing over blunt high level averages next time out.

I'm going to vote no on that one.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So to summarise....

Blunt average = UP

Breakdown by property types = UP (for all types)

Individual house sales = UP

I think we're done here.....

The salient points.

geneer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Except of course, that they didn't....

The average price of city centre flats on one index only reduced, but it's based on just a few dozen properties with a price range from 80K to 200K..... Such a small sample can indeed be skewed by a change in the sales mix, as you point out.

When you dig a little deeper, and use the larger sample size RoS breakdown of properties by type, it turns out that all property types rose, flats, terraced, semi, and detached.

When you dig even deeper, and look at individual properties that sold in 2006/2007 that sold again in 2010, all the ones I've seen have sold for a similar price or more in 2010 as they did in 2006/7.

A few examples.....

162, Forest Avenue, Aberdeen, AB15 4UN
-Dec-2009 £280,000
Dec-2006 £255,500

98, Union Grove, Aberdeen, AB10 6SA
Jun-2010 £130,000
Apr-2007 £91,500

305, Union Grove, Aberdeen, AB10 6TD
May-2010 £121,121
Oct-2007 £115,000

57, Chapel Street, Aberdeen, AB10 1SS
Jun-2010 £170,000
Mar-2007 £156,777

58e, Chapel Street, Aberdeen, AB10 1SN
Jun-2010 £145,000
Aug-2006 £110,000

398, King Street, Aberdeen, AB24 3BY
Jun-2010 £125,000
Dec-2007 £124,000

394, King Street, Aberdeen, AB24 3BQ
May-2010 £132,500
Oct-2007 £130,501

Now it doesn't get much more "city centre" in Aberdeen than Chapel street, King street, etc, yet here we have evidence of city centre flats selling for more in 2010 than they did in 2007.

So to summarise....

Blunt average = UP

Breakdown by property types = UP (for all types)

Individual house sales = UP

I think we're done here.....

Thanks Spamish for demonstrating how your random sample of a half dozen or so flats is more relevant than any one statistical index.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


Thanks also for somehow conjouring up 2007 peak prices even though no one was discussing it.

Allow me to reitterate my case.

ASPC Q3 2010:

The average property price in the Aberdeen Housing Market Area for the 3

rd quarter
of 2010 is £212,050 a decrease of £1,308 on the previous quarter figure of £213,358.

Oh that doesn't sound too bad. Hamish was right, bulls win, new peaks blah blah blah.

But dig a little deeper.

Aberdeen City Centre:
Q2 2010: £149438
Q3 2010: £ 135475.
Fall of around £14K.

Ouch.

I think we're done here.....(or at least Hamish soon will be, as per usual)

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Hamish has been spot on with his analysis and predictions throughout the crisis.

LOL.

So would we all, if we covered every single base.

Spring bounce, turns into continual bounce. He claims in winter prices will dip, when they don't dip, he claims he was right because he said prices would rise.

When prices don't rise, but stagnate, he claims he was right, because he also talked about stagnation.

When they fall, he claims he was right, cus he talked about the winter dip.

When they rise, he claims he was right because he said they would rise.

When prices were going up "supply and demand" was contained within every single post as the sole reason for prices rising, and rising forever more.

When prices no longer rise forever more, supply and demand is out of the window, and it's mortgage rationing, nasty banks, poor FTB's.

When those "poor" FTB's can't buy a house and have to rent, it's tough, but when they may possibly be able to buy, it's back to "oh the poor FTB, the country is doing them a disservice, banks should be forced to lend.

When prices fall nominally, it's back to chocolate and banana graphs (his own words). When the prices fall on the chocolate graph, it's back to nominal prices.

When both fall, it's back to "how much renters have lost in the months they have rented".

In other words, he's predicted falls, rises, and stagnation, with no timeframes on any of them. Of course he's right, as he can just pick any of those predictions, which will all be right at some point, and say "look, I was right".

If prices fall 10%, those that said 15% were wrong. When prices fall 20%, those that said 25% were wrong. When they fall 30%, LOL, the nutters who said 40% were wrong. 50% and so on, and the bar just keeps moving.

I feel I have made my point now.

I like Hamish, I like his persevierance, I like the fact it rarely gets personal (though I know the buttons to press ). But stating he's almost always right? Like stating bears take a sly one in the woods. Of course he's right. He's predicted every outcome...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

geneer wrote: »

Thanks Spamish for demonstrating how your random sample of a half dozen or so flats is more relevant than any one statistical index.

I'll make it easy for you geneer.

Show me a half dozen city centre houses that sold for less in 2010 than they did in 2007.

But dig a little deeper.

ASPC city centre average......

Really? Is that seriously the best you can do?

You spend the last 100 posts bickering about small sample size and skew due to sales mix, and claim house prices are falling by taking the smallest sample size of all, which is most likely to be skewed due to sales mix, and claim this proves something.....

Just..... Wow.

geneer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'll make it easy for you geneer.

Show me a half dozen city centre houses that sold for less in 2010 than they did in 2007.

:rotfl:No thanks spamish. But feel free to contact ASPC if you believe they are mistaken.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

ASPC city centre average......

Really? Is that seriously the best you can do?

Gosh, imagine using a smaller subset of the larger average to clearly and decisively demonstrate one of the salient points of my argument.

What am i like!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You spend the last 100 posts bickering about small sample size and skew due to sales mix, and claim house prices are falling by taking the smallest sample size of all, which is most likely to be skewed due to sales mix, and claim this proves something.....

Just..... Wow.

The last 100 posts? Really? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Sorry Hamish, but are you suggesting that we should use house price statistics for the whole of the earth, or for the two flats to either side of you, to assess whether house prices have changed up your way?

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

But dig a little deeper.

Why not use the latest data

http://www.aspc.co.uk/Documents/HousePrices-2010Q4.pdf

At the end of 2010 the YOY average price in Aberdeen Housing Market Area has risen 5%

Of course, small subset data could vary from the average, even be negative.
That would of course mean that other subset data is positive to end up with an overall positive outcome.

you could even compare with Q4 2009
http://www.aspc.co.uk/Documents/HousePrices-2009Q4.pdf

you could also see the graphical representation

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Why not use the latest data

Because I selected an example which clearly illustrated my point.

Thanks for posting blunt global averages again though.
In the context of this discussion, you've clearly proven......erm, what exactly? :rotfl:

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Of course, small subset data could vary from the average, even be negative.That would of course mean that other subset data is positive to end up with an overall positive outcome.

Sigh. Thats an amazing grasp of the obvious you've got there.

I do love how "aberdeen city centre" has become a small subset.

For arguments sake, I'm sure that if someone's had to take a £10K loss on their house sale, or finds they have to pay through the nose when remortgaging because they no longer have enough equity to qualify for decent rates....well I'm sure they will sleep better knowing that the overall average for all property types in a large geographic area might not paint quite as bad a picture as they find themselves in.