Bullish Bulls have been calling the "Soft Landing" every year since 2002.

the_risen_christ

wotsthat wrote: »

How much longer can you wait before you buy a house?

I'm guessing that you are single or have a tolerant partner. Living in a bedsit for eight years and still not buying would test the patience of a saint.

Have you thought about working out the total cost of ownership vs. renting over the longer term because every year that ticks by means your experiment costs more money.

haha it's 2002 all over again. you've been watching too many lll repeats.

geneer

I've cut and pasted this from another thread, as poor old pimperdoodle doesn't seem to understand the concept of "on topic".

Pimperne1 wrote: »

To summarise then.

In 2004 you recall the bulls predicting a soft landing.

When pressed you indicate that the bulls are Nationwide, Halifax and Columbo.

On investigation it transpires that Nationwide was predicting a 10% rise for the year, Halifax a 16% rise and Columbo wasn't active on any House Price Crash sites.

Actually pimp my primary case is that "bulls" (generalised) have, in one way or another, been calling a "soft landing" every year since 2002.

The evidence I have tabled is a variety of links, from a variety of sources, initiating from a variety of what we call VIs (and by default Bullish), each and every one with the headline or some other reference to a "soft landing".

If your point is that not "ALL" VI bulls made the exact same predictions at the exact same time in one or another year within that timescale, I would suggest that the value of such a banal observation is limited if not irrelevant.

Anyway to address some of your specific issues, you very much appear to have missed my earlier comments on the Nationwide prediction (from 2002 no less).

I'll restate for completeness.

Doh! Pimp fluffs it shocker!
But it certainly is interesting to dig a little deeper.
Because it appears that Nationwide was predicting a "soft landing" at best, with a potential crash on the downside.
Naturally, being VI bulls, "soft landing is the central view".

Allow me to reitterate.
1) The original 2002 article containing Nationwides "prediction".
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-2548507-soft-landing-for-housing-market.do
Headline "Soft Landing for the Housing Market".
Quote from the same article, suggests, rather ironically,
that Nationwides predictions in 2001 were rather "soft landingy" too.

Analysts are likely to take the latest forecast with a substantial pinch of salt. A year ago, Nationwide predicted house prices would rise just 6% in 2002.

It seems my thread should be titled "bullish bulls have called the "soft landing" every year since 2001".

Thanks for highlighting that Pimperni1.

Next, The original Nationwide press release of the same month.
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/2003_forecast.htm

Central view is that UK housing market achieves a soft landing in 2003…

Now, onto Halifax.

You suggest Halfiax predicted 16% for 2004.
You would be right. They did suggest it. In June 2004. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Their original prediction was for a "soft landing" of 8%.
They had to change the sime mid year on account of how horribly wrong they got it (and if I'm not mistaken that was my original point).
http://www.findaproperty.com/displaystory.aspx?edid=00&salerent=0&storyid=6251

Although they've doubled their forecast for house price growth in 2004 from eight per cent to 16 per cent, the Halifax believe the housing market will slow next year...

So never mind, soft landing next year then.

As to good old Columbo (Rinoa), hes been a big fan of the annual soft landing for as long as I can remember.
As indeed have the majority of the bulls.
Their propensity for thoughtlessly running with VI soundbytes is well know, and the various claims that they did not do so in the years leading up to the inevitable crash are, quite simply, astonishing.

In any event, heres good old clownbumbles tying his sail to the soft landing mast.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=42724644&postcount=134

I think were done here.

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

I've cut and pasted this from another thread, as poor old pimperdoodle doesn't seem to understand the concept of "on topic".



Actually pimp my primary case is that "bulls" (generalised) have, in one way or another, been calling a "soft landing" every year since 2002.

The evidence I have tabled is a variety of links, from a variety of sources, initiating from a variety of what we call VIs (and by default Bullish), each and every one with the headline or some other reference to a "soft landing".

If your point is that not "ALL" VI bulls made the exact same predictions at the exact same time in one or another year within that timescale, I would suggest that the value of such a banal observation is limited if not irrelevant.

Anyway to address some of your specific issues, you very much appear to have missed my earlier comments on the Nationwide prediction (from 2002 no less).

I'll restate for completeness.




Allow me to reitterate.
1) The original 2002 article containing Nationwides "prediction".
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-2548507-soft-landing-for-housing-market.do
Headline "Soft Landing for the Housing Market".
Quote from the same article, suggests, rather ironically,
that Nationwides predictions in 2001 were rather "soft landingy" too.



It seems my thread should be titled "bullish bulls have called the "soft landing" every year since 2001".

Thanks for highlighting that Pimperni1.

Next, The original Nationwide press release of the same month.
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/2003_forecast.htm


Now, onto Halifax.

You suggest Halfiax predicted 16% for 2004.
You would be right. They did suggest it. In June 2004. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Their original prediction was for a "soft landing" of 8%.
They had to change the sime mid year on account of how horribly wrong they got it (and if I'm not mistaken that was my original point).
http://www.findaproperty.com/displaystory.aspx?edid=00&salerent=0&storyid=6251

So never mind, soft landing next year then.

As to good old Columbo (Rinoa), hes been a big fan of the annual soft landing for as long as I can remember.
As indeed have the majority of the bulls.
Their propensity for thoughtlessly running with VI soundbytes is well know, and the various claims that they did not do so in the years leading up to the inevitable crash are, quite simply, astonishing.

In any event, heres good old clownbumbles tying his sail to the soft landing mast.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=42724644&postcount=134

I think were done here.

I think you're right, we are done.

Pimperne1

Just one final word then! Turns out Gneer has been getting "Bullish Bulls" mixed up with what are commonly known on these sites as "Vested Interests". I couldn't agree more that Halifax, Nationwide, RICS (yes, and even Columbo) might be best served with high house prices so they have vested interests but Bulls they are not (or at least all except Columbo are not).

tartanterra

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Just one final word then! Turns out Gneer has been getting "Bullish Bulls" mixed up with what are commonly known on these sites as "Vested Interests". I couldn't agree more that Halifax, Nationwide, RICS (yes, and even Columbo) might be best served with high house prices so they have vested interests but Bulls they are not (or at least all except Columbo are not).

There is no point in trying to debate with Geneer. It's a lost cause.

Most people, when faced with the prospect of being unable to afford to buy a house would think "I cannot afford to buy a house, therefore I need to increase my earnings potential"

In Geneers world, it's more a case of "I cannot afford to buy a house, therefore house prices must fall"

The net result of this is that Geneer tries to single handedly crash the entire British housing market, by employing the "endless rambling thread" method on MSE forums.

Don't attempt to bring some reasoning to their threads. Geneer simply doesn't listen.
The best thing you can do is simply not feed the lunacy.

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

I think you're right, we are done.

We are now pimperdoodle.
You appear to have no credible response.
Who could have seen that coming. :rotfl:

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Just one final word then! Turns out Gneer has been getting "Bullish Bulls" mixed up with what are commonly known on these sites as "Vested Interests". I couldn't agree more that Halifax, Nationwide, RICS (yes, and even Columbo) might be best served with high house prices so they have vested interests but Bulls they are not (or at least all except Columbo are not).

So your saying that the VIs aren't natural bulls. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Oh dear.

geneer

tartanterra wrote: »

There is no point in trying to debate with Geneer. It's a lost cause.

Its a shame that your pals haven't taken that advice in this thread.
Sadly, they didn't realise thay had already lost.

So have had attempts to redefine the definition of soft landing.
We've had attempts to redefine what a bull is.
We've had attempts to redefine history by making assertions
that are clearly gobsmackingly wrong ("No bull ever claimed there would be a soft landing" :rotfl:).
We've even had jaw droppingly outrageous comments suggesting that the bulls never thoughtlessly repeated VI mantras as a matter of course.

But what can be done.
When you can simply google "soft landing" and "house prices" and find a plethora of articles, from various sources, dating back to 2002, there in black and white for all to see, you'd have to think that only a complete spanner would attempt to claim otherwise.

Luckily, theres no shorting of spanners in the bull community, which is why this house price discussion is such a gosh darned jolly good laught.

Sibley

There is no point in trying to debate with Geneer. It's a lost cause.

Most people, when faced with the prospect of being unable to afford to buy a house would think "I cannot afford to buy a house, therefore I need to increase my earnings potential"

In Geneers world, it's more a case of "I cannot afford to buy a house, therefore house prices must fall"

The net result of this is that Geneer tries to single handedly crash the entire British housing market, by employing the "endless rambling thread" method on MSE forums.

Don't attempt to bring some reasoning to their threads. Geneer simply doesn't listen.
The best thing you can do is simply not feed the lunacy.

I got to that stage a while back.

She keeps talking like there has been a crash. It that was true why is she still living in a bedsit?

System

gazfen32 wrote: »

Tiiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmbbbbbbbbbbbbeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrr

Why did your last account get banned?