Hometrack July -0.1%

Graham_Devon

All this does somewhat amuse, with both "parties" trying to go down the one upmandship route about who was correct.

The only thing I wanted to say is that last year, we were only allowed to look at the YOY figure from Dec - Dec. Why? Because some had called stagnation. Therefore, year to date figures were to be ignored. And woe betide you if you did post them to show year to date figures were negative as it didn't count.

However, this year, only year to date figures are to be concentrated on. Why? Because year to date figures right now look like they could break into positive teritory.

All a lot of nonsense really isn't it?

All this justifying to each other how silly other people are and follow up responses, pointing out other forums etc etc etc is all just pyscological. Group therapy if you like, to make people feel better about themselves.

Rinoa

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The only thing I wanted to say is that last year, we were only allowed to look at the YOY figure from Dec - Dec. Why? Because some had called stagnation. Therefore, year to date figures were to be ignored. And woe betide you if you did post them to show year to date figures were negative as it didn't count.

That's not how I remember it.

Some may suggest you're just not happy due to the current figures not saying what you want them to.

julieq

You can look at any figures you want Graham, I wasn't aware there were rules about which ones were relevant. YOY figures aren't a bad indication of a trend, rolling averages are better (in my opinion), monthly figures tell you very little, though we've had circumstances where bears have multiplied one large monthly decrease by 12 and extrapolated an annual rate from that (then looked very foolish indeed the next month when the decrease reverses).

The telling statistic in this bunch is that volumes are increasing. What should happen from here is that more and more people cross the finishing line as regards saving deposits and see very very low long term rates and an apparently weakish housing market to exploit. That really is plug out of the bottle time.

Pimperne1

Rinoa wrote: »

Extreme indeed.

BTW just in case anyone missed it (the discussion topic was pulled), geneer was banned a week or so ago.

Geneer was banned? :eek:

DervProf

I "predicted" (well, I told a few friends and if I remember correctly posted it on the other forum) that house prices would drop 25% - 30%. Yes, I suppose I was wrong, but I do remember being dismissed by many a bull for such an outrageous suggestion. Prices were going ever upwards, or at worst, would slow down their rate of increase, according to most people that I spoke to. I even told a couple of people that "I think the money will run out".

Not that I shout too loudly, or am really that bothered if my predictions turn out to be correct. What bothers me more is that we seem to be in the brown and sticky, and it could have been avoided.

Generali

julieq wrote: »

You can look at any figures you want Graham, I wasn't aware there were rules about which ones were relevant. YOY figures aren't a bad indication of a trend, rolling averages are better (in my opinion), monthly figures tell you very little, though we've had circumstances where bears have multiplied one large monthly decrease by 12 and extrapolated an annual rate from that (then looked very foolish indeed the next month when the decrease reverses).

The telling statistic in this bunch is that volumes are increasing. What should happen from here is that more and more people cross the finishing line as regards saving deposits and see very very low long term rates and an apparently weakish housing market to exploit. That really is plug out of the bottle time.

Volumes are only up on the month. They're down on the year by about 10% according to the Land Registry (link)

The most up-to-date figures available show that during May 2011, the number of completed house sales in England and Wales decreased by 10 per cent to 46,870 from 52,170 in May 2010

Volumes won't be approaching anything like 'normal' levels until they double from here. The quarter April - June 2001 (the Land Registry used only to show quarterly volumes) had 266,536 sales or about 89,000 a month (link). The only way that volumes can double at current prices is if mortgage lending doubles. Where are the banks going to get the money from to lend while at the same time being obliged to shore up their reserves?

The alternative is that house prices halve and lending stays the same. That seems highly unlikely to me but you're living in LaLa Land if you think the former scenario is likely to happen in the near future.

Where will the money come from to bid up prices and let 'the plug out of the bottle'? Even Central Banks printing money couldn't push up house prices!

ruggedtoast

Rinoa wrote: »

Extreme indeed.

BTW just in case anyone missed it (the discussion topic was pulled), geneer was banned a week or so ago.

What did he do?

Rinoa

ruggedtoast wrote: »

What did he do?

Probably an accumulation of various indiscretions. They usually don't ban anyone until they have received a few warnings.

I guess his posting style was too aggressive.

Pimperne1

Rinoa wrote: »

Probably an accumulation of various indiscretions. They usually don't ban anyone until they have received a few warnings.

I guess his posting style was too aggressive.

Maybe they've found a way of working out who the least successful person was at predicting house prices and eliminated him.

ILW

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes, "up north" is included in the 28% of postcodes where prices are falling.

Do they have new fangled things like postcodes "up north" yet?