Nationwide October: +0.4% MoM, +0.8% YoY

joguest

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Not quite. Jo said:

"The truth is, however, that your comments are a complete waste of time because they will never influence whether prices go up or down. The question is - why do you bother"?

So I asked him whether he thought his comments would influence whether prices go up or down and he replied "No, of course they won't".

This begs the obvious question.

No it doesn't. If you go back and read my previous comment, I said there were two types of poster. If I'm not here to try and influence prices I, logically, must fall into the other category.

Pimperne1

joguest wrote: »

No it doesn't. If you go back and read my previous comment, I said there were two types of poster. If I'm not here to try and influence prices I, logically, must fall into the other category.

Well if you didn't avoid so many questions from posters you might do but as you do you appear to be here to provide your opinion and that's it.

joguest

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Well if you didn't avoid so many questions from posters you might do but as you do you appear to be here to provide your opinion and that's it.

I've never avoided a single question on here. Please give an example.

Pimperne1

joguest wrote: »

I've never avoided a single question on here. Please give an example.

Loads of examples but here's one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/48174453#Comment_48174453

Pimperne1

And another:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/48145637#Comment_48145637

joguest

Pimperne1 wrote: »

And another:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/48145637#Comment_48145637

I responded to both the examples you've given (and comprehensively demolished McTavish in the process). I haven't had a response from Hamish since I replied to him this morning. The difference is that I don't jump up and down in a rage if he doesn't respond instantly - and I don't deliberatley misrepresent and distort other peoples' arguments in debate the way he does - which makes discussions with him rather futile and a complete waste of time.

Pimperne1

joguest wrote: »

I responded to both the examples you've given (and comprehensively demolished McTavish in the process). I haven't had a response from Hamish since I replied to him this morning. The difference is that I don't jump up and down in a rage if he doesn't respond instantly - and I don't deliberatley misrepresent and distort other peoples' arguments in debate the way he does - which makes discussions with him rather futile and a complete waste of time.

Sorry, I thought didn't intend to respond (until pressed) because:

"I gave up bothering to converse with you because it was completely unproductive".

and

"I didn't respond because your response was vacuous and based on no evidence whatsoever."

Or, in MSE speak - "You knocked my argument into a cocked hat and it would have been embarrassing".

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

joguest wrote: »

I gave up bothering to converse with you because it was completely unproductive.

Translation:

"You knocked my argument into a cocked hat and it would have been embarrassing".

Getting back to the original point I made - if the distribution of house price changes (from the previous month) is symmetrical then half the areas involved will have experienced a price drop and the other half will have experienced a price increase. If it is slight asymmetrical then it will be slightly skewed one way or the other.

Ah, right then.

So given the published results of RICS and Hometrack, both of which show that prices are only falling in around 35% of local areas in the UK, you accept that the national/regional average price can be skewed by a greater number of local areas falling than rising (even though most areas are stable) or not?

joguest

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Translation:

"You knocked my argument into a cocked hat and it would have been embarrassing".




Ah, right then.

So given the published results of RICS and Hometrack, both of which show that prices are only falling in around 35% of local areas in the UK, you accept that the national/regional average price can be skewed by a greater number of local areas falling than rising (even though most areas are stable) or not?

I see you conveniently haven't answered my question about your assertion that the Nationwide using a median average (have you looked up what a median is yet, given that you didn't actually know in your previous posts?). At a guess, I would say the Nationwide use a population or (population of) housing stock weighted mean value, so the answer is: no, I don't accept the figures (the average house price reported each month) are skewed at all. The figure is an average - and I'm pretty damned sure that they've thought about weighting it accordingly - unless you have evidence to the contrary?

(Why am I even bothering to argue with someone that doesn't know what a median average is?)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

joguest wrote: »

I see you conveniently haven't answered my question about your assertion that the Nationwide using a median average

And you still haven't answered the original points I raised!!!

This whole 6 page median tantrum you're throwing came about because you claimed the following.

joguest wrote: »

The figures discussed yesterday were an average for the whole of the country, meaning that probably around half of the country experienced a larger fall than 2.8% over the last year.

So... if the fall is 2.8%, and you claim half experienced a smaller fall, and half a greater fall, then you're effectively claiming that 2.8% is the median fall in price. (With the word median being used in the layman's context to which we're all used to, before you divert this down another pointless tangent)

Whereas I've pointed out two surveys which show around 55% of local areas have not changed in price at all recently.

Those same surveys show that the number of local areas falling in price is around 35%, and the number of local areas rising is around 10%.

Are you really trying to tell me that there would be no change in the Nationwide, Halifax or Land Registry indices if those figures are true?

That the average price would not change on any index if 55% of houses remained stable in price, 10% rose in price a little, and 35% fell in price rather more?

No change at all?

Seriously? :rotfl: