Nationwide +0.5%

chucky

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

HeHe,

He can't even jump from MoM, YOY or QOQ as their all positive

the poor lad clutches at straws so often he must burns from clenching them so hard...

never mind, if i was in his position i might act as desperate as he does on this forum... it's tragic

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not a huge Rush fan I'm afraid, but you can't help but admire the contribution they've made to music.

I'll dig out and occasionally play the Moving Pictures album throughout, not so fond of the early or later stuff, although I confess to also owning a copy of Roll the Bones. Neil Peart is a f***ing God on drums though, I'll give them that.

When I want a fix of outstanding musicianship, I'm more likely to reach for Muse than Rush these days.

Moving Pictures :beer:

Neil Peart is a f***ing god on drums :beer: :beer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHkucr1jJpQ

Roll The Bones :eek: (Can't say that's a favourite, but Bravado is a great track)

Either you've just done some googling, or you aren't so bad after all !

Oh, and Muse happen to be another (less so) favourite band. Really got into them a few years ago and saw them play at the MEN Arena. Great show.

Cleaver

AD9898 wrote: »

Not really listened to Devin's solo stuff. Strapping Young Lad on the hand are/were gods. I like my drummers and Gene Hoglan is frickin' insane.

I saw Strapping back in 98 in the back room of a pub with an audience of eleven (including me and my two friends). They were amazing and it was nice to go and see them again over the years and see them pick up more and more fans.

If you like some proggy stuff then I can really recommend Devin's solo work. It's all worth checking out, but I'd personally start with Ocean Machine (around 99?), Terria (around 2002?) and Ki (2008) and see if you like any of them. If you're in to appreciating the musicianship as well as the music, then I'd start with Terria, which is an awesome album. Earth Day is probably my favourite track:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDcpF4C5cas

My favourite Dev song is this though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z_UJ0_biJw

Hamish, if you like Muse, then you might be in to Devin Townsend. But I always hesitate to recommend him, as people seem to really love his solo stuff or really hate it. The albums take a bit of getting used to, so I think you need at least five listens before getting in to it.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Cleaver wrote: »

Hamish, if you like Muse, then you might be in to Devin Townsend. But I always hesitate to recommend him, as people seem to really love his solo stuff or really hate it. The albums take a bit of getting used to, so I think you need at least five listens before getting in to it.

Listened, and it doesn't grab me immediately. Might be a slow burner though, so I'll take another listen.

My taste in music is extremely varied, last 5 plays on my Ipod are:

REM -- Orange Crush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mSmOcmk7uQ

Monster Magnet -- Spacelord

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dscfeQOMuGw

Pixies -- Hey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHNkN1OjnkU

Nickelback -- Rockstar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmeUuoxyt_E

AC/DC -- Gimme a Bullet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDjKl41gs54&feature=related


But it could just as easily be anything from Dave Mathews Band, to Sneaker Pimps to Public Enemy to Phunk Junkeez through Coldplay, lots of early AC/DC, Supertramp, Fleetwood Mac or Pink Floyd.

Even been known to throw on some Sinatra, Billie Holiday, Lyle Lovett, or Miles Davis.

If people are good at what they play, I'll probably enjoy listening to it.

Generali

julieq wrote: »

Gen, Graham was explaining that you don't look at progressions in trends to look at supply and demand. I'm arguing - and so are you in fact - that that's all you do pretty much because the end point is a forecast.

Clearly absolute demand for purchasing a house is constrained by availability of finance. I've never disagreed with anyone about that, not even Graham. But that doesn't necessarily result in falls, because if there are sufficient numbers of people able to pay the price it'll sustain a particular price level. Those competing have higher average means because those of lower means drop out UNTIL there is more supply than those remaining in the game need at which point price falls start.

One of the distinguishing things about the recent recession and fall in house prices followed by this prolonged stagnation has been the lack for forced sellers. Presumably this is a function of very low interest rates that has allowed sellers to keep their homes and constrained supply.

Inflation adjusted debt is slowly being paid down in the private sector but it is more than being replaced by the public sector. As the economy recovers it will be interesting to see how households manage to respond to the twin pressures of having to service more debt through their taxes and the existing high levels of private sector debt.

julieq wrote: »

And we have a complicating factor with housing in that everyone needs to live somewhere, and there is very little slack in the system (around 3% empty homes according to Hamish's numbers). That means there is strong demand for the rental sector which makes a house an investment opportunity and will keep its value high. It is not necessary to have a mortgage to buy a house, and the reduction of mortgage finance excludes not all potential purchasers but only those needing mortgages. That is a very important point here. The absolute value of a house is determined by the demand for housing overall, rented or purchased, as a function of potential yield essentially.

If you can accept that argument - which frankly I've been making throughout, however it gets distorted and misrepresented, then we're just discussing supply/demand trends at the household creation/home creation level. Because they are the dominant effects.

Of course all prices are set at the margin in a market and one big determinant of marginal changes will be household creation. One point though. If there was a genuine shortage of housing then the rental market across the UK would be like that of Central London (and Sydney for that matter) with very low vacancy rates.

julieq wrote: »

To use your example against you, ( ) baby boomers die. That doesn't depress house prices, it just satisfies some of the residual excess between demand and supply. A baby boomer selling to raise funds before they die just swaps a lower price house for their higher price house. Unless the house is divided into flats, no net home gain takes place and the supply/demand equation is unchanged. Ultimately you only cope with supply/demand differentials by equalising the rate of supply to the rate of demand.

What you might do is to create localised effects where there is more demand for "granny flats" and lower demand for larger houses. But overall the only solution is to build more, otherwises prices will rise.

All true, and it's good to recycle my argument (very green ). However many baby boomers are 'over consuming' housing. About half the parents of the kids in my street still live there in 3 and 4 bedroomed detached houses with big gardens. In increasing numbers of cases there is just one person occupying that space.

Ultimately you are right. If house prices are to be significantly lower in the long term, house builders have to be allowed to build houses people want to live in (3 bedroom houses with a garden plus small 'granny flats') where they want to live (in and around London and along the M4 corridor for the most part). Unfortunately I don't see that happening in the UK any time soon.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

How is stagnation good for 'bears'?

I can understand it means that prices are not escalating out of their affordability whilst saving for a deposit.

It certainly doesn't mean that its getting any cheaper and of course the question then raises as to how much it costs for their current accomodation.

How does it affect those that STR and are looking for price drops?

How is it not?
If nominal prices flatline, this is ultimately a good thing for those who want to see house prices recalibrate to sensible, less socially damaging, levels.

And yes, saving for a deposit is once again of considerable financial benefit. So not having prices escalate is a considerable boon to potential FTBs.

Who cares about a couple of people who STRed.
Has nothing to do with me, or most posters I imagine.

geneer

RenovationMan wrote: »

Also, myself and thrugle were having a side discussion about mortgage default rates that was slightly off topic, but at least we are discussing economic/financial stuff and not an insult in sight (albeit there was a bit of 'chivving' on my part as I have to go home soon and rarely log in on here when I'm not paid too )

Good old RenovationMan, champion of ignorers.
Thats the problem with trying to claim the high ground.
Its so easy to fall off.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

HeHe,

He can't even jump from MoM, YOY or QOQ as their all positive

Gotta say, unless theres a £3K increase in april, YOY and QOQ will be back to negative.

Oh, and unless there's been a 6 grand increase last month, YOY and QOQ will most certainly be negative for Halifax in march.

Throw the land reg into the mix, and bears win on aggregate!

What a blow for the bears!

geneer

PROPERTY_LANDLORD_CLASS wrote: »

Meanwhile you'll pay off another month of you landlord mortgage.

How generous of the bears!

More time and effort pushed into the creation of another sockpuppet.
Someones a grumby bunny.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

Gotta say, unless theres a £3K increase in april, YOY and QOQ will be back to negative.

What a blow for the bears!

You need to check your figures again.
I don't believe the QoQ figures need to be £3k increased in April to prevent going negative.

geneer - Once again prooved wrong.