"What’ll happen to house prices?" poll discussion

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Money Saving Polls
37 replies 7.2K views
124»

Replies

  • HAMISH_MCTAVISHHAMISH_MCTAVISH Forumite
    28.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    NEO72 wrote: »
    I'm not disputing the fact that in the past the indices have been closely correlated.

    Oh good.

    Until early 2009 all three were closely correlated.

    From that point onwards, Halifax has become the odd one out, while Land Registry and Nationwide have remained in correlation.
    You stated that "Halifax has been the odd one out recently" - and that is clearly not the case, even going by your little chart.

    Just in case you're red/green colourblind or something, Halifax is the one in Red....

    Halifax is the one that does not correlate closely with the other two since early 2009. ;)

    5764300332_c943c3991d.jpg
    Besides this is all rather splitting hairs since you've agreed that the LR is the most comprehensive dataset and according to them, prices have begun falling consistently over the past 6 or 7 months :D

    How would you know??? Land Registry lags by several months, so is currently showing a picture of what was happening midwinter.

    Therefore 6-7 months of falls is precisely what you'd expect.

    In another 3-4 months it will show what is happening today.... Prices rising.
    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

    Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

    -- President John F. Kennedy”
  • NEO72NEO72 Forumite
    69 Posts
    Oh good.

    Until early 2009 all three were closely correlated.

    From that point onwards, Halifax has become the odd one out, while Land Registry and Nationwide have remained in correlation.



    Just in case you're red/green colourblind or something, Halifax is the one in Red....

    Halifax is the one that does not correlate closely with the other two since early 2009. ;)
    I'll save you further embarrasment and offer you some advise - go and ask one of the bigger boys what a correlation actually is (clue: it doesn't mean the two pretty lines have to touch each other). Then go back and re-read your posts ;)

    How would you know??? Land Registry lags by several months, so is currently showing a picture of what was happening midwinter.

    Therefore 6-7 months of falls is precisely what you'd expect.

    In another 3-4 months it will show what is happening today.... Prices rising.

    So the Land Registry is shows consistent falls from last Summer to mid winter and you're basing your assumption that prices are rising on the survey with the smallest and most unreliable sample - good stuff :T

    Just noticed your link on an earlier post - an article from 2001! - great work again but why not have a look at the NW and Halifax's methodologies (that means how the surveys are carried out btw) and you'll see that your - ahem evidence - of bias is irrelevant.

    The sad thing is, I remember you posted the occasional half-decent argument when you were on HPC but, whether through desperation, panic or whatever, you seem to have become detached from the facts (either that or you are purposely misrepresenting them to try and convince others).
  • HAMISH_MCTAVISHHAMISH_MCTAVISH Forumite
    28.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    NEO72 wrote: »
    So the Land Registry is shows consistent falls from last Summer to mid winter .

    And just on cue, Land Registry is released today and shows a rise of 0.8%, continuing to confirm the correlation with Nationwide when adjusted for the time lag.

    .
    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

    Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

    -- President John F. Kennedy”
  • NEO72NEO72 Forumite
    69 Posts
    And just on cue, Land Registry is released today and shows a rise of 0.8%, continuing to confirm the correlation with Nationwide when adjusted for the time lag.

    .

    Are you mental? Seriously? What does this show?

    OK, I'll humour you as I have a few minutes on my hands.

    So going by your previous claim that: "everyone knows Land Registry lags by 3-4 months...... So it's currently showing the same position Nationwide did in January." - I assume you're saying that this 0.8% tallies with NWs Feb figure of 0.5%. OK, so far so good.

    So lets track back a bit a little longer shall we, since of course you will know that a single data point doesn't prove a correlation (that would be ridiculous wouldn't it..). Here are the previous five figures for the land Registry and Nationwide:

    -0.7 (LR) vs 0.0 (NW)
    -0.5 (LR) vs +0.3 (NW)
    +0.5 (LR) vs -0.3 (NW)
    -0.8 (LR) vs -0.7 (NW)
    -0.8 (LR) vs 0.0 (NW)

    Perhaps since you are such a statistical whizz, you could tell me what the correlation coefficient is for the above?

    OR, you could just look at the figures and realise what !!!!!! you've been talking.

    BTW - happy to lend you a spade, since you seem intent on digging yourself a deeper hole.
  • edited 2 June 2011 at 1:11AM
    rickbonarrickbonar
    448 Posts
    edited 2 June 2011 at 1:11AM
    The banks and building societies which also happen to be mortgage lenders and estate agents have to talk up the market and lately it seems Halifax which always insisted the prices were rising have suddenly done an about turn and saying they're falling. (Contrary to the usually more truthful Nationwide but I think NW will probably adopt the same or tactic in the near future)

    Why? ... how about this ... prices are falling (and as someone mentioned earlier will fall much faster when -not if- the interest rate rises) however they've got a business to run and estate agents to pay so I believe they are now ........over doing the figures one month downward then as to claim next month that they've sold more they actually have if you follow my reasoning? Say prices have fallen 2% then they claim it's 6% hence next month when really it's another loss of 3% they sound the trumpets crack open the champagne & claim a momentous gain of 1% and a market bounce etc.

    Presumably an attempt to kid a few more wavering buyers with the readies to take the plunge ... of course by the end the year they're just another set of punters who've been conned again.

  • And just on cue, Land Registry is released today and shows a rise of 0.8%, continuing to confirm the correlation with Nationwide when adjusted for the time lag.

    .
    I was eagerly following the Hamish versus NEO exchange as I remain poised to buy a house and wonder whether to delay in light of a depressed market or buy and take advantage of offering well below the asking price and securing a decent mortgage deal.
  • Adrian ... I'd hang on

    The house prices have reached the limit. Simply because they have gone beyond most people wages (which are dropping too) and thus are below the lending criteria capacity of the banks.
    People with houses already are doing a sort of musical chairs but with property - some borrowing a few grand more to upgrade slightly and others buying something smaller and keeping in cash the surplus. The ones borrowing even £50k though could be in trouble when the higher interest rates start to come in and house prices drop.

    I would sooner buy and live (motor)caravan or tent than pay some of the silly rents these empty places are asking (and it's mainly to pay off their oversized mortgages) At least one advantage - no council tax!

    I shouldn't be surprised if at some point they raise interest 2 or more points and people will end up handing their keys all over place and rich Tories and housing associations and banks will buy up large swathes of all these repo jobs at a knock down price.
    I think in anticipation of this, the government has rightly put a limit on how much can be claimed in housing benefits which was about £3000 a week is now £400 per week and that's only large families. And I know there is common fiddle going with "asylum seekers" which they're trying also trying to limit, but they've already made millions but I hear with the capital going back into Pakistan.
    I know I'm running the risk of getting this post deleted by saying it but they really ought confiscate colluder’s property and put an end to these sham marriages and housing benefit fiddles with these foreigners. The old treason laws and penalty (which Blair cancelled) should be brought back NOW Mr Cameron and EU can keep its legislation as we only signed up as a trading partner.

This discussion has been closed.
LATEST MSE NEWS AND GUIDES

Cheap Train Tickets

Hidden fares, split tickets and how to beat booking fees

MSE Guides