Harder to rewrite history than you think Bulls.

chucknorris

geneer wrote: »

Well did he?




If he did, then it was a spectacular error.
One which has little bearing on his advice in 2007.

I honestly don't know because all I can refer to is previous posts, which are obviously not a 100% reliable as firm evidence. Although I do seem to remember seeing a tv programme referring to it, but unfortunately I can't remember the date that they mentioned. But I do remember they made a point of saying that he got the timing wrong very badly.

Yes he was correct in 2007, but that might be because he was saying it continuously from 2002. He had to get it right one year as it was obvious the cycle would turn (just as it will turn upwards again at some point).

geneer

StevieJ wrote: »

He said that interest rates were on the up and that would cause damage to the housing market, what actually happened?

Interest rates increased just 0.5%, and that was enough to push the market over.

Cleaver

geneer wrote: »

I was demonstrating that you were incorrect in your declaration that this forum doesn't have bulls and bears.

I said that this forum is the only place that has bulls and bears in the way you (we?) define them. I said that 99.9% of people in the real world (i.e., not on here) have no understanding of this concept.

StevieJ

geneer wrote: »

Interest rates increased just 0.5%, and that was enough to push the market over.

But did he predict that they would fall to 0.5%, BTW it was the US induced credit crunch that 'pushed the market over' as you put it.

geneer

chucknorris wrote: »

I honestly don't know because all I can refer to is previous posts, which are obviously not a 100% reliable as firm evidence. Although I do seem to remember seeing a tv programme referring to it, but unfortunately I can't remember the date that they mentioned. But I do remember they made a point of saying that he got the timing wrong very badly.

Yes he was correct in 2007, but that might be because he was saying it continuously from 2002. He had to get it right one year as it was obvious the cycle would turn (just as it will turn upwards again at some point).

HPC itself was created late 2003.
So the whole 2002 claims does seem to lack credibility.

You are correct in that the failure on timing in 2004/2005 is clear, and admitted. How could it not be. But it is clearly a worst failing to get it 100% wrong.

Yes he was correct in 2007. End of story. Your "stopped clock" analoogy drips with insincerity. As is the bullish propensity for characterising a couple of years as some kind of "eternity".

Graham_Devon

I said this not too long back, and still stand by it.

Who has predicted closer to the outcome?

A) The person who stated house prices would crash, but got the timing wrong.
The person who said there wouldn't even be a crash.

In my mind, it's person A. However, all the focus seems to be on the fact that the timing was wrong. Yet others who didn't even predict the event at all, are, somehow, in some peoples minds, far more worthy of their time.

I don't really understand it. The only way I can understand it, is to say to myself "they can't much like him as his views are different to theirs". To be honest, this is all I think it is.

No one predicted the event with success. However, there were people who at least predicted the event would happen. Seems bizzare to target these people as fools or whatever else. Hindsight is fantastic, and I personally feel thats all some of you are relying on.

StevieJ

geneer wrote: »

HPC itself was created late 2003.
So the whole 2002 claims does seem to lack credibility.

Ahh, so it was a Damascus moment in late 2003, he didn't ponder over it for awhile

geneer

StevieJ wrote: »

But did he predict that they would fall to 0.5%,

You do not appear to understand the meaning if the word "unprecedented".
I suggest you look it up.

StevieJ wrote: »

BTW it was the US induced credit crunch that 'pushed the market over' as you put it.

It was defaults which caused the credit crisis. Defaults come through inability to pay. Increased interest rates reduce the inability to pay. The UK clearly had its own problems, and the claim that it was all caused by the US is spurious indeed.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I said this not too long back, and still stand by it.

Who has predicted closer to the outcome?

A) The person who stated house prices would crash, but got the timing wrong.
The person who said there wouldn't even be a crash.

In my mind, it's person A. However, all the focus seems to be on the fact that the timing was wrong. Yet others who didn't even predict the event at all, are, somehow, in some peoples minds, far more worthy of their time.

I don't really understand it. The only way I can understand it, is to say to myself "they can't much like him as his views are different to theirs". To be honest, this is all I think it is.

Some people don't think there has been a crash but a credit crunch induced correction, (BTW prices are probably higher now than when he first predicted a crash) I predict here and now that there will be a bubble and a crash in the next 100 years (I may as well give myself some leeway seeing as timing doesn't matter:)).

geneer

Cleaver wrote: »

I said that this forum is the only place that has bulls and bears in the way you (we?) define them. I said that 99.9% of people in the real world (i.e., not on here) have no understanding of this concept.

Then theres no problem with myself, and others using the phrase here then is there.