Halifax -0.5% MoM -2.3% YoY

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

No of course you haven't got it right - no surprise there.

An affordability calculation has two sides to it; disposable income AND cost.

If something becomes more affordable then either disposable income has increased or the item in question has become cheaper. Now, this is where we might lose you, it's possible that both disposable income has increased and the cost have reduced at the same time.

If you get as far as understanding this we might talk about how something might become more affordable even its cost has increased. That's for another day when you've grasped dividing one number by another and expressing it as a percentage.

You've just realised your faux pax, yes? Hence the insults at the end?

If people are paying higher despoits, the montly payment is less. That's the reason for the figures Hamish gave, aswell as lower interest rates and people falling off fixed deals.

joguest

Rinoa wrote: »

Your 1996 example appears to have backfired spectaularly Jo. Big increases in volume followed by big increases in HPI.

And I guess we'll be waiting a long time to see whether your collapse prediction, made in 2009, ever comes to fruition.

How has it backfired spectacularly?? - because you say so!! - without giving any reasoning or evidence!!!!

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You've just realised your faux pax, yes? Hence the insults at the end?

If people are paying higher despoits, the montly payment is less. That's the reason for the figures Hamish gave, aswell as lower interest rates and people falling off fixed deals.

What's long term for you - a fortnight?

It's as cheap as it has been to service a mortgage debt since 1997.

Rinoa

joguest wrote: »

How has it backfired spectacularly?? - because you say so!! - without giving any reasoning or evidence!!!!

The evidence is there Jo, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

It was you who proffered 1996 as an example of sales increasing but prices flatlining. But Nationwide showed prices actually rising 8.5% YoY by the end of 1996.

It's not much of a theory Jo if you have to go back 16 years to find an example of it, only to find it doesn't even work in your illustration of choice.

joguest

Rinoa wrote: »

The evidence is there Jo, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

It was you who proffered 1996 as an example of sales increasing but prices flatlining. But Nationwide showed prices actually rising 8.5% YoY by the end of 1996.

It's not much of a theory Jo if you have to go back 16 years to find an example of it, only to find it doesn't even work in your illustration of choice.

It's quite clear that you're a complete ignoramus, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering responding to you, but...

1. I actually said that sell-offs are a feature of bear markets, which contain periods where volumes increase at the same time as prices decreasing.

2. Any increase in sales volumes at present is likely to be due to an increase in supply, meaning prices going lower (given that demand is so constrained, such rises in volumes are not going to be due to an increase in demand).

3. I have presented quite straightforward and compelling evidence of such sells-offs occurring this year in Leicester and at the end of the last bear market nationally (unfortunately the land registry's figures only go back to 1995, so it' not possible to show such periods from earlier on during that crash).

4. It is quite likely that BEFORE the next rally in house prices that sales volumes will increase, but that increase in sales volumes is in itself only likely to be caused by price falls. That next rally may well be another counter-trend rally like the present bounce, or it might be the beginning of another boom that takes prices above the 2007 peak, but such a boom isn't likely to even begin withing the next 5, probably more like 10-15 years.

Yes, it's going to take a while to see if I'm right, but that's the nature of the housing market. Prices went up for 12 years during the boom and the bust is likely to play out over a similar time-frame.

Rinoa

joguest wrote: »

1. I actually said that sell-offs are a feature of bear markets, which contain periods where volumes increase at the same time as prices decreasing.

OK Jo, show us where sales volumes increased when prices fell in 2008

joguest wrote: »

2. Any increase in sales volumes at present is likely to be due to an increase in supply, meaning prices going lower (given that demand is so constrained, such rises in volumes are not going to be due to an increase in demand).

Care to say why RICS are not showing the increases in supply you mention.

joguest wrote: »

3. I have presented quite straightforward and compelling evidence of such sells-offs occurring this year in Leicester and at the end of the last bear market nationally (unfortunately the land registry's figures only go back to 1995, so it' not possible to show such periods from earlier on during that crash).

Still waiting to for your explanation as to why in 1996 prices rose 8.5% YoY by December. I note you LR example only went to August.

joguest wrote: »

Yes, it's going to take a while to see if I'm right, but that's the nature of the housing market. Prices went up for 12 years during the boom and the bust is likely to play out over a similar time-frame.

No it isn't Jo. 2 years ago you said:

joguest wrote: »

Precisely why they will fall Hamish. The fact that prices are rising at the moment at the end of a long bull run and in the face of all reason actually demonstrates why prices will collapse.

and:

joguest wrote: »

...I have attempted to engage in debate but am clearly just wasting my time here. I'll come back in one to two years time and have a laugh at you instead.

Your two years are up, but prices haven't collapsed as you confidently predicted. Back to the drawing board for you Jo, see if you can conjure up another brilliant theory.

joguest

"Your two years are up, but prices haven't collapsed as you confidently predicted. Back to the drawing board for you Jo, see if you can conjure up another brilliant theory. "

They are collapsing - did you have a look at the plot I posted for prices in Leicester?

Mwahahahahahahahah, etc.

joguest

"Care to say why RICS are not showing the increases in supply you mention."

The fact that prices are falling almost certainly shows that supply is increasing. Supply is not the same thing as the number of houses on the market or even the sales volumes. The definition of an increase in supply is that sellers are willing to sell for a lower price (the supply curve moves to the right/up). What has RICS got to do with it exactly?

joguest

"OK Jo, show us where sales volumes increased when prices fell in 2008 "

The land registry shows that sales volumes increased in the early part of 2008 (as prices fell). That initial sell off was then eclipsed by a sellers' strike, which actually had the effect of allowing prices to fall more freely, as the only ones left selling in the market were forced sellers. Then in early 2009, the measures introduced in the wake of the Lehman's collapse (ZIRP) helped to put a floor under the market and partially enabled the bounce. The other major factor that led to the bounce of the last couple of years was the fact that prices fell too steeply in 2008. Quite a lot of the bears were expecting prices to fall 40% - 50% (in real terms) in an unrealistic timeframe. I still contend that such commentators were right about the size of the falls, just not the length of time it will take for them to be realised.

Rinoa

joguest wrote: »

"Your two years are up, but prices haven't collapsed as you confidently predicted. Back to the drawing board for you Jo, see if you can conjure up another brilliant theory. "

They are collapsing - did you have a look at the plot I posted for prices in Leicester?

Mwahahahahahahahah, etc.

They are higher than when you made your 'collapse' prediction.