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

geneer

RenovationMan wrote: »

A 10% reduction in growth of house prices isn't a 10% fall in house prices. It's a slowing down of growth from 25% to 10%. While I admit that 25% growth is outstanding, 10% growth isn't to be sniffed at. I'd certainly be pleased with that sort of growth for my savings right now.

Erm...and? You seem to be having a different conversation.


On that note, whys RM making a comeback?
whatever happened to your three other sock puppet occounts?

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Yep, seems that geneer does not understand that 10% growth is positive along with a host of other things he fails to comprehend.
I really do feel sorry for him.

Yep, seems that lite not understands where the reference to -10% came from, and knowing his error is now desperately smokescreening with pointless factually incorrect assertions.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

Yep, seems that lite not understands where the reference to -10% came from, and knowing his error is now desperately smokescreening with pointless factually incorrect assertions.

Feel free to show the link that reflects -10% and not growth slowing to 10% in 2003 then.
I'll not hold my breath

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Feel free to show the link that reflects -10% and not growth slowing to 10% in 2003 then.
I'll not hold my breath

:rotfl:What link? I was refering to pimps oft repeated (and laughable) assertion.
You can tell because of how the word "pimp" is contained in the sentence structure.

geneer wrote: »

:rotfl:Yeah. According to pimp -10% counts as a soft landing.

geneer wrote: »

Its dear old pimp (amongst other brain surgeons) who've decided
a 10% fall counts as a soft landing.

Naturally you made an error in interpreting this, and rather than admit the same you've set about a no doubt extented campaign of pedantry attempting to demonstrate how your flawed assumption hinges around how a semi-colon was located. Or something along those lines eh.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

:rotfl:What link? I was refering to pimps oft repeated (and laughable) assertion.
You can tell because of how the word "pimp" is contained in the sentence structure.

LOL, you've not even loooked at the actual statement before attempting to discredit it.

Here's the Link
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/2003_forecast.htm

Here's the quote

Central view is that UK housing market achieves a soft landing in 2003…
Overall we believe that sentiment and expectations will be broadly neutral for house price growth. Given the modest deterioration of economic conditions our forecast is for UK house price growth to slow from around 25% in 2002 to 10% in 2003. The slowdown is likely to focus on the second half of the year, with the current strength of the market persisting for several more months. We may even see a static period of house prices around the Summer/Autumn as the market pauses for breath in light of affordability constraints and higher interest rates.

I'm interested to understand how you think 10% rowth is a crash.

It would also be nice for you to admit for once you were wrong

Originally Posted by geneer
:rotfl:Yeah. According to pimp -10% counts as a soft landing.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

LOL, you've not even loooked at the actual statement before attempting to discredit it.

Here's the Link
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/2003_forecast.htm

Here's the quote


I'm interested to understand how you think 10% rowth is a crash.

It would also be nice for you to admit for once you were wrong

:rotfl:As previously stated that has absolutely nothing to do with pimps quoted assertions.

As predicted you've elected to try to justify your error rather than admit it.
Efforts which are infinitely more amusing than your original faux pas.