Halifax -0.5% MoM -2.3% YoY

Jimmy_31

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I imagine that has been the case in every month they've risen since early 2009 as well.

Yet they did.;)

Who says:rotfl:

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

You disputed the affordability figures because you thought they were based on the earnings of the halifax mortgagees. I've shown they were based on national averages and therefore not being skewed by the probably higher income of those who do get a mortgage.

Borrowing costs have reduced and according to the ONS pay is up by 2.8% YOY. As a proportion of income, therefore, less money is required to service the debt.

Really it's not that difficult. It's just a ratio.

Have I got this right?

You are claiming that ONS pay being up 2.8% this year, equates to mortgage payments dropping from 48% of disposable earnings, to 26%?

We'd have to obviously factor in pay rises since 2008. But seriously, you are honestly trying to claim payrises have made THAT much difference to mortgage payments as a percentage of disposable income?!?

Blimey. A 5% pay rise would have mortgages as a percentage of disposable income down near 18% in that case!!!

Sorry but... :rotfl:

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What other way? Different financial era.

It's not a different era, it's inclyded in the data that makes up the 30 year real house price trend.

Without that era, the trend would have been much higher, thus it "skews" the data downwards during that period (according to how people like to use the "skewing affect").

Others realise that all the data contributes to the trend, not just the time period above the trend.

joguest

Rinoa wrote: »

I think you've merely demonstrated your lack of understanding at how such statistics are compiled. Firstly, there is a time lag between sales numbers and prices. Secondly, unlike the national index, regional and city indices use 4 month rolling averages in an attempt to smooth out prices on low volumes.

In an earlier post you claimed high sales in 1995/6 had led to price falls, but by the end of 1996, HPI was 8.5%.

In an earlier post I said the last time (before the current bear market began in 2007) house prices decreased with increasing volumes was in 1996 (at the end of the last bear market). This is evidenced by these figure from the land registry (for england and wales):

Month Average Price/Sales Volume
Mar 1996 £60,751/72806
Apr 1996 £60,006/67923
May 1996 £60,122/83073
Jun 1996 £60,221/79515
Jul 1996 £59,516/89807
Aug 1996 £59,747/96124

According to the land registry, prices were up a staggering 0.1% YoY in December 1996 (compared with the 8.5% figure you've plucked from where exactly? - strange that you don't reference your figures, eh)

"Firstly, there is a time lag between sales numbers and prices."

Yes, that's why they don't publish the sales volumes until a couple of months after their initial estimate of the house price index (which they update every month for all months going back to 1995, rather bizarrely). It is now October - the data I quoted for Leicester was for the period January -June.

A four month moving average just removes higher frequency components (as it approximates a low-pass filter in the frequency domain). A moving average therefore makes such a data comparison more reliable, not less. Hoisted by your own petard there I'm afraid.

Rinoa

joguest wrote: »

In an earlier post I said the last time (before the current bear market began in 2007) house prices decreased with increasing volumes was in 1996 (at the end of the last bear market). This is evidenced by these figure from the land registry (for england and wales):

Month Average Price/Sales Volume
Mar 1996 £60,751/72806
Apr 1996 £60,006/67923
May 1996 £60,122/83073
Jun 1996 £60,221/79515
Jul 1996 £59,516/89807
Aug 1996 £59,747/96124

According to the land registry, prices were up a staggering 0.1% YoY in December 1996 (compared with the 8.5% figure you've plucked from where exactly? - strange that you don't reference your figures, eh)

LR has a considerable lag, particularly back then. However Nationwide were showing an 8.5% YoY rise by December 1996 ~ which confirms my point that price rises follow sustained increases in volume. A fact so blindingly obvious I'm amazed you challenge it.

Nationwide data download:
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical.htm

nearlynew

It makes me laugh when people quote "official figures" as if they are the final word and no further analysis is necessary.

Rinoa

nearlynew wrote: »

It makes me laugh when people quote "official figures" as if they are the final word and no further analysis is necessary.

No surprise you don't like official figures nearly.

joguest

Rinoa wrote: »

LR has a considerable lag, particularly back then. However Nationwide were showing an 8.5% YoY rise by December 1996 ~ which confirms my point that price rises follow sustained increases in volume. A fact so blindingly obvious I'm amazed you challenge it.

Nationwide data download:
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical.htm

Those increases in volume are only going to come through decreases in price (caused by an increase in supply) or increased demand (lower taxes, growing economy, lower deposits, lower unemployment, higher wage inflation, etc). At the moment, demand is being severely constrained, so it looks like the only way for volumes to increase is for to supply to increase by vendors dropping their price. So, yes, we're not likely to see prices rise in a sustained manner until they have fallen.

If you came out with a statement: "price rises follow a period of sustained decreases in price & increases in volume, given the hugely cyclical nature of the UK housing market" then it might tie with the actual data.

Of course the tricky thing is calling when that period of increasing volumes/decreasing prices is going to end. Given the last bear market ended in 1996 (according to the land registry) and that followed a smaller bubble than the present, then it is entirely likely that we are only a half/third of the way through the long-term bear market after 4 years.

Rinoa

joguest wrote: »

Those increases in volume are only going to come through decreases in price (caused by an increase in supply) or increased demand (lower taxes, growing economy, lower deposits, lower unemployment, higher wage inflation, etc). At the moment, demand is being severely constrained, so it looks like the only way for volumes to increase is for to supply to increase by vendors dropping their price. So, yes, we're not likely to see prices rise in a sustained manner until they have fallen.

If you came out with a statement: "price rises follow a period of sustained decreases in price & increases in volume, given the hugely cyclical nature of the UK housing market" then it might tie with the actual data.

Of course the tricky thing is calling when that period of increasing volumes/decreasing prices is going to end. Given the last bear market ended in 1996 (according to the land registry) and that followed a smaller bubble than the present, then it is entirely likely that we are only a half/third of the way through the long-term bear market after 4 years.

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.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Have I got this right?

You are claiming that ONS pay being up 2.8% this year, equates to mortgage payments dropping from 48% of disposable earnings, to 26%?

We'd have to obviously factor in pay rises since 2008. But seriously, you are honestly trying to claim payrises have made THAT much difference to mortgage payments as a percentage of disposable income?!?

Blimey. A 5% pay rise would have mortgages as a percentage of disposable income down near 18% in that case!!!

Sorry but... :rotfl:

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.