House prices 'to fall by 20%'

AD9898_2

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I'm trying to make a point now Graham but you keep swerving it.

I also just noticed this:
"although rarely do their 'funny' posts get more than one 'thanks'."

Send rewired my way ad, then maybe I can get as many as you.

Embarassing.

Just off hand mate, why did you think it was you ? I didn't mention names.

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I'm trying to make a point now Graham but you keep swerving it.

What point is it that you are trying to make? Just make it. Don't keep trying.

System

AD9898 wrote: »

Just off hand mate, why did you think it was you ? I didn't mention names.

2nd time you've mentioned it in a post directly after one of mine and once you actually quoted me.

Doesn't take a private eye

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What point is it that you are trying to make? Just make it. Don't keep trying.

My point is that CE are the least reliable source of house price movement predictions and have been the most inaccurate, and therefore their predictions are worth nothing. This is despite your slightly moronic suggestions to the contrary, which revolve around the fact that no one was 100% correct, therefore sit in the same bracket as CE, and the only reason people don't like their predictions are because they are "more bearish" (despite never being remotely accurate).

Let's not pretend it's about being right, as no forecaster has been right.

Durrrrr.

Ad will tell me off for going off topic here, which is quite frankly bizarre.

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

My point is that CE are the least reliable source of house price movement predictions and have been the most inaccurate, and therefore their predictions are worth nothing. This is despite your slightly moronic suggestions to the contrary, which revolve around the fact that no one was 100% correct, therefore sit in the same bracket as CE, and the only reason people don't like their predictions are because they are "more bearish" (despite never being remotely accurate).

Were they my suggestions?

I think they were your suggestions, which you are trying to imply I said. Which I didn't. Read again. I never said any of that, simply said no one was spot on...in other words, suggesting no forecaster was right. You've added your own parts to that and implied I said them...but you won't actually find words to that affect under my name.

Now, I'll ask you a question, which I wouldn't mind you answering....

Capital Economics were forecasting a downturn in 2006/7 in the housing market. Which other forecaster was forecasting this please? You got any? Cus I don't know any. Indeed, I'm sure it was the CML who were forecasting 12% HPI for 2007/8.

Yet, it's you, Hamish, and various other VI's who wish to say it's CE that are wrong, because, although the direction they forecast was correct and most others got the direction wrong....it didnt fall as much as CE forecast.

As you say yourself, they were "more wrong" than other forecasters....yet other forecasters hadn't even forecast a downturn. So how can CE be more wrong?

Let's guess, it's because CE had forecast a downturn before? And because you completely ignore the forecasts AFTER the housing stimulus, QE etc, and rely totally on the predictions BEFORE all that and bring them up time and time again while ignoring any newer predictions based on what we now know, as they don't prove as much against CE. Hence hamish stops quoting CE predicitons in 2008. How handy.

Now, I'm not a CE fan. I believe all forecasters have been wrong, but you came here, after accusing someone else of crashing the thread, to merely have a pop and start playground slurs over "little head" etc etc.

So can you please explain to me how CE was infact "more wrong" when they got the direction right and others got it wrong? No backtracking, no beating round the bush, just a simple answer.

I'm guessing your answer will be "because they had forecast it for ages". Fantastic.

Durrrrr.

Insightful.

The other option is to stop playing on words, implying people said stuff, accusing others of doing stuff, which infact, you had just done yourself, and actually have your own opinion instead of slating everyone elses.

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Were they my suggestions?

Perhaps you could elaborate on this for us then.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Afteral, all forecasts were wrong, but many other forecasters were held more in favour with the VI's.

All forecasts were wrong but as I keep trying to get through to you, not to the same extent.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So can you please explain to me how CE was infact "more wrong" when they got the direction right and others got it wrong? No backtracking, no beating round the bush, just a simple answer.

I'm guessing your answer will be "because they had forecast it for ages". Fantastic.

Yes that's exactly why they are more wrong, not only did they "forecast it for ages". They didn't get the direction right once. Every time they make a prediction the opposite happens.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm not sure how anyone could be more wrong if they tried.

So ultimately, your suggestion that no one likes them because they are the most bearish, is tripe, the reason no one likes them ("likes", really? Respects would be a more apt word) is because they spectacularly bad at predictions, no more no less.

teameffort

i don't think it's a case that house prices will drop my much, there is always a market for all hosing. The question is how much can can people resonably pay. we have already seen a return of the days where morgages are 30-40% of wages.

the question here shouldn't be by what percentage are the house prices going to rise/fall by. but rather what are house prices going to do in your area.

Is it not a reasonable assumption to say that house prices are likely to fall more in areas that have seen the most growth?

System

teameffort wrote: »

Is it not a reasonable assumption to say that house prices are likely to fall more in areas that have seen the most growth?

It's London and the SE that have had the most growth, and it doesn't seem likely they'll fall much if at all.

Of course, if you're talking in pounds rather than percentages then it's possible.

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Perhaps you could elaborate on this for us then.

All forecasts were wrong but as I keep trying to get through to you, not to the same extent.

Never said any differently. If I meant to say what you are (still, in desperation, I assume) trying to imply I said, after me already saying i didn't say that, I would have just said it. I just said, all forecasts were wrong. End of.

Yes that's exactly why they are more wrong,

Oh, how did I guess?

Bored now Joe. You offer no opinion. No discussion. No debate. Just ritual twisting and put downs.

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Bored now Joe. You offer no opinion. No discussion. No debate. Just ritual twisting and put downs.

Easy way for you to duck out

Off you trot to make more opinion, discussion and debate with comments like this

Let's not pretend it's about being right, as no forecaster has been right. Capital Economics is not liked by many because it's a far more bearish forecaster. It's as simple as that.

PS, see my post before this one, opinion, discussion AND debate all in one post, wrong again G_D. Wrong again.