Nationwide +0.5%

Generali

Here's a weird one. If you look at the Q1 report (first quarter ends at the end of March) it says house prices are down 0.3% on the year.

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical/Q1_2011.pdf

Interesting to note that Nationwide are also showing this North-South (probably actually a rich-poor) divide:

The northern regions of England (North, Yorkshire and Humberside, North West, East Midlands and West Midlands) have all seen price falls over the past five years, whilst all of the southern regions, apart from East Anglia, have seen price rises. This has resulted in a
significant widening in the north / south house price divide. Average prices in the south are now 65% higher than those in the north, compared with 44% five years ago.

Another bit, possibly of interest.

How much of a squeeze on borrowers?
For those with a capital repayment mortgage, a typical mortgage payment is currently around £4551, equivalent to 23% of individual take home pay. A one percentage point rise in interest rates would see this rise to £494 - 25% of current take home pay. In the five years before the crisis, the Bank Rate averaged 4.5%. A rise to this level would see typical payments rise to £621 if rate increases were fully passed on to borrowers.

If the Bank of England were to increase interest rates to 4.5% by the end of 2013 and wages keep rising at the current pace of 2.3% a year, this would take typical payments on repayment mortgages to 29% of take home pay.

Can the economy and housing market cope?
Ultimately, the key factor determining the impact of higher interest rates on households is the economic backdrop against which it takes place. If the rise in interest rates is gradual and occurs when the economy is recovering strongly and the labour market is strengthening, then the impact on households and the housing market should be fairly modest.

However, still high levels of debt and the increased share of variable rate mortgages suggests increased grounds for caution, since the household sector is likely to be more sensitive to interest rate increases. This is an important consideration - after all, households account for over 60% of spending in the economy, and the recovery remains fragile.

More households may choose to switch to fixed rate mortgages in the quarters ahead, reducing the sensitivity to rate rises. But the incentive is blunted by the fact that the rates on fixed rate deals are often higher than the variable rate people are currently on. This is because the cost of fixed rate mortgages is linked to longer-term interest rates, which are higher than the Bank Rate. Moreover, the differential may widen further in the months ahead - long-term interest rates may move up more sharply than the Bank Rate as investors
anticipate further interest rate increases ahead.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

+ 2.2% MoM without the seasonal adjustment.

Just thought I'd mention that as there were a lot of NSA charts posted over the winter.

julieq

Oh get real Ruggedtoast. What have I said? Graham doesn't believe in supply and demand (see Ferrari discussion), Graham doesn't believe in pipelines and lag (see his argument with me half a pipeline ago). Therefore he's not going to understand the basis of the argument I'm making. Even if he could sort through numbers to see which one is most significant.

The depressing thing here is that pointing out any of Graham's shortcomings becomes a prelude to pages of irrelevant arguing over detail. He's perfectly content to including mocking or dismissive comments about those who argue with him, but the slightest hint of irritation back - and fundamentally we have someone here who doesn't have a great grasp of detail and who overwhelmingly focuses on headlines without critical analysis - and I'm suddenly a mean lady.

The story here is one of house price stagnation. It's not difficult to understand why that is happening on a supply/demand basis, and to be honest the progression from this point isn't hard to model either. You don't change what is happening by chasing people you disagree with out of an online forum. The fact is that the "bull" predictions (and the bulls aren't bulls, we're essentially moderates) get proved directionally much more accurate than the bear predictions does demonstrate we're worth listening to.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

Here's a weird one. If you look at the Q1 report (first quarter ends at the end of March) it says house prices are down 0.3% on the year.

Northern Ireland down 10.8% YoY probably had a lot to do with that.

But the trend within the quarter is different too. Prices were comparitively higher last year in jan/feb due to the hangover from the rush to beat stamp duty bonus ending in Dec. Whereas this year prices were lower in Jan/Feb due to the poor winter, but growth is now accelerating in March.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Oh get real Ruggedtoast. What have I said? Graham doesn't believe in supply and demand (see Ferrari discussion), Graham doesn't believe in pipelines and lag (see his argument with me half a pipeline ago). Therefore he's not going to understand the basis of the argument I'm making. Even if he could sort through numbers to see which one is most significant.

Erm Julie.

My only issue with supply and demand is you consistantly wrap desire into demand.

All I have said is demand is desire AND ability to buy / proceed.

Please do not make out I have said something more, and suggest I don't understand anything just because you wish to ignore the ability to pay part.

You basically stated the other day, "graham, you either agree withj me or you are an idiot, that is your choice". That's what it boils down to with you.

ruggedtoast

julieq wrote: »

Oh get real Ruggedtoast. What have I said? Graham doesn't believe in supply and demand (see Ferrari discussion), Graham doesn't believe in pipelines and lag (see his argument with me half a pipeline ago). Therefore he's not going to understand the basis of the argument I'm making. Even if he could sort through numbers to see which one is most significant.

The depressing thing here is that pointing out any of Graham's shortcomings becomes a prelude to pages of irrelevant arguing over detail. He's perfectly content to including mocking or dismissive comments about those who argue with him, but the slightest hint of irritation back - and fundamentally we have someone here who doesn't have a great grasp of detail and who overwhelmingly focuses on headlines without critical analysis - and I'm suddenly a mean lady.

The story here is one of house price stagnation. It's not difficult to understand why that is happening on a supply/demand basis, and to be honest the progression from this point isn't hard to model either. You don't change what is happening by chasing people you disagree with out of an online forum. The fact is that the "bull" predictions (and the bulls aren't bulls, we're essentially moderates) get proved directionally much more accurate than the bear predictions does demonstrate we're worth listening to.

And there you go. Mean.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Gosh, where could they be?

JonnyBravo

Yawn Hamish.
Give it a rest.
You are usually one of the more factual bulls on here. Just vociferous in your argument which of course winds up some elements with opposing views.
Today you seem to be reverting to a mirror image of their moronic fringe elements.

chewmylegoff

I wish the terms "bull" and "bear" were starred out by the swear filter, just like G H O U L now finally is.

DaddyBear

Definate stagnation in nominal terms. :beer: