Nationwide +0.5%

geneer

julieq wrote: »

It's a PREDICTION Graham. You're not likely to understand the reasoning, because it relies on understanding how supply and demand works when there's a lag introduced by the buying process, and you don't think supply/demand exists, but the prediction is:

small falls for a few months based on capital repayment rates, followed by rises when mortgages become more generally available in about 10-12 months time.

You mean like the supply and demand equation you formulated which demonstrated how falling demand from FTBs will ultimately cause house prices to rise.

Okay dokay then.

julieq

geneer wrote: »

You mean like the supply and demand equation you formulated which demonstrated how falling demand from FTBs will ultimately cause house prices to rise.

Okay dokay then.

Erm, what I said was that you don't need FTB's for prices to rise. Which you don't. You just need strong demand for housing, As it happens, it appears that FTB price inflation is higher than elsewhere in the market. And did you see the lenders report which explained that BTL was increasing as a response to increased demand for rented housing?

There's a good general principle Geneer, which is that when someone stops arguing with you, it's not necessarily because you're right. It's because spending time arguing with the class thickie is ultimately a bit of a waste of time and you may as well just wait for events to prove you right.

Did you see that prices are up YOY? Another year's rental down the drain I guess Try not to be bitter.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Graham, are you deliberately perverse? How do you make a shortfall of around 50K homes annually into increasing supply?

You were talking about current demand. Therefore I was talking about current supply availiable to buy.

Are you being deliberately perverse? Or are you basing demand on houses not even built yet, and therefore not actually part of any supply?

What's the point of looking that far ahead when the current supply availiable to service demand, is increasing?

If you are going to talk supply and demand, and overstate demand, by firstly turning it into desire, and then talk about supply which isn't even availiable while ignoring the supply that is availiable is increasing, then I'm baffled.

Go on, tell me I don't understand. All I don't understand is your outlook on everything.

Going back to my ferrari analogy. If we have increasing numbers of ferraris availiable to buy, but people can't afford to buy them....your solution appears to be to ignore the ones currently avaliable to buy, and state "well, we'll need to build more, theres demand for ferraris....just look at all the posters we sell".

geneer

julieq wrote: »

Well to be honest Geneer, it's about the best you're likely to get.

Can't say I agree with that.
But I am tickled by the way the bulls seem to be quietly taking "stagnation" (i.e. real term falls) as a win.
Despite "years of grinding real term falls" being a very common bearish prediction.

julieq wrote: »

When can we expect the next leg down exactly?

Dunno. When's the halifax figures coming out?
Historically its dampened the bullish ardour more often than it hasn't.

geneer

RenovationMan wrote: »

Dont you find that you scroll down the thread much more slowly now that you dont have to skim past his dire posts?

By putting the [STRIKE]village[/STRIKE] board idiot on ignore, I have added years to the life of my wheel mouse. Now that's Money Saving! :money:

Looks like a double whammy for RM.

His "ignoring" does seem to take a disproportionate amount of time and effort.

I'm actually quite flattered at the significant levels off attention I appear to be getting from a number of parties now I'm being ignored. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You were talking about current demand. Therefore I was talking about current supply availiable to buy.

Are you being deliberately perverse? Or are you basing demand on houses not even built yet, and therefore not actually part of any supply?

What's the point of looking that far ahead when the current supply availiable to service demand, is increasing?

If you are going to talk supply and demand, and overstate demand, by firstly turning it into desire, and then talk about supply which isn't even availiable while ignoring the supply that is availiable is increasing, then I'm baffled.

Go on, tell me I don't understand. All I don't understand is your outlook on everything.

Going back to my ferrari analogy. If we have increasing numbers of ferraris availiable to buy, but people can't afford to buy them....your solution appears to be to ignore the ones currently avaliable to buy, and state "well, we'll need to build more, theres demand for ferraris....just look at all the posters we sell".

I'm going to regret bothering with this, but let's have a go...

Graham, are we not talking about forecasting trends - whether prices rise or fall? In that case we must necessarily accept that part of that is modelling how supply varies over time with respect to demand.

If we're just talking about today, then the prices are what they are, depending on who is buying what and what price they've agreed to pay. I.e. it's a function of supply and demand today. That amount is 0.5% higher than this time last month, and from that we can reasonably infer that the differential between supply and demand has decreased.

Desire is not a concept that has any meaning unless you admit the possibility it represents suppressed demand. If it is suppressed demand then it acts on a future situation, it can't do anything else. So we are already looking into the future and we can start admitting trends.

And the trend is that around 50K households annually require houses MORE than are being created. If we already have a reservoir of desire (let's use your term) ON TOP of this shortfall, you are building an additional pent up pressure in the system from the point at which desire can be realised.

I'm really struggling to find simpler ways of explaining this. You're confusing a very simple concept - an auction essentially for something more than one person wants - by inventing unnecessary additional concepts, in what appears to be an attempt to find a theoretical model where a shortfall in supply versus demand will not cause value to rise.

shortchanged_2

julieq wrote: »

Erm, what I said was that you don't need FTB's for prices to rise. Which you don't. You just need strong demand for housing,

Do you actually believe this statement julieq?

Maybe in the short term it may hold merit, but if you look at a medium to long term picture of course it will make a difference as to put it simply if a link in the chain is missing or a cog in the wheel has broken it eventually breaks.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

I'm really struggling to find simpler ways of explaining this. You're confusing a very simple concept - an auction essentially for something more than one person wants - by inventing unnecessary additional concepts, in what appears to be an attempt to find a theoretical model where a shortfall in supply versus demand will not cause value to rise.

You don't need to explain it to me, as in all of your explanations you totally ignore ability to pay the price.

You are still ignoring the ability to pay the price.

As prices rise, less people can afford to pay the price. That means fewer people have desire turned into demand.

It's as simple as that. It's something you ignore continually, and then suggest you have led horses to water but by god you can not make them drink it, someone drown the horse, make it drink the !!!!!!! water.....still won't drink...someone....shoot the stupid ignorant horse....it won't agree with me and drink the water.

You've now written off desire and the price of the asset as "unecessary additional concepts". That's up to you. But don't go round stating people don't understand. That's your theory.

If you ignore desire, as you obviously wish to do...then why are house prices not rising now...instead of simply falling, rising, stagnating?

geneer

julieq wrote: »

Which everyone's happy with, with the exception of Geneer's mythical straw bulls (a straw bull GUARANTEES a soft landing)

The problem is that that won't happen for long because there is pent up demand the banks appear to be positioning themselves to satisfy.

Ah. You are of course are refering to those bulls who you

a) claimed don't exist as a singular collective just before
b) deciding you could speak on behalf of the same collective
c) felt capable of advising that no bull ever had claimed a soft landing was imminent.

Though of course
1) we all have sufficent powers of memory to recall that the "soft landing" was a regularly reitterated bullish meme and
2) you were confronted with evidence that the big old housing bear "Nationwide" appears to have called soft landing every year since 2002.

Just so we're all clear.

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As prices rise, less people can afford to pay the price. That means fewer people have desire turned into demand.

It's as simple as that.

If less people can afford to buy houses as prices rise then I guess there's one, two or three reasons:

1. Less people aren't actually buying houses, more people are, so the prices rise
2. Less people can afford to buy houses, but the other group of people who can afford houses bid against each other and it's enough to make prices rise
3. Lending criteria allows people who 'can't' afford to buy houses to buy houses

But generally speaking, if houses prices are rising it's because people can afford to buy houses at the higher prices, hence the prices going up.