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

julieq

Well Graham, it's not what you were predicting is it? I seem to recall that you went in on the attack and started blathering about how average incomes weren't average incomes.

It may be obvious, in short, and I'm glad you agree that it's happening anyway. We're making some progress I guess.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Well Graham, it's not what you were predicting is it? I seem to recall that you went in on the attack and started blathering about how average incomes weren't average incomes.

It may be obvious, in short, and I'm glad you agree that it's happening anyway. We're making some progress I guess.

Well I wouldn't "predict" the obvious. Theres no prediction to be made. The same "prediction" will run through any part of the economy no matter how good or bad the economy is, for all of time. Always has done, always will do.

To self congratulate and take credit for predicting the fact that wealthy people will be able to buy more than non wealthy is hilarious.

julieq

LOL Graham, you're priceless.

If there's nothing uncontroversial with the idea that prices will be stable or rise because of the supply/demand imbalance and the removal of finance from the low end of the market, why have you spent about the last 3 years arguing that it won't happen and that average incomes need to be able to buy an average house?

I'm pleased you're now accepting the obvious. But it has been a long and uphill battle for you.

Good progress this week. We've defined a crash as between a 10 and 20% nominal drop over three years, and you've agreed the supply/demand imbalance is sustaining prices. All we need now is for the bears to figure out that restricting lending helps no-one except the baby boomers who already have houses or BTL. and all the pennies have finally dropped.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

joguest wrote: »

@Hamish
I'm intrigued by the way you think the mix-adjustment works. Do you seriously believe they just ignore the areas where house prices are stagnant and derive a figure based on what they think should be happening? .

Well seeing as how you can't seem to grasp the concept of mix adjustment, I'm not surprised you don't grasp the fact that a minority of areas changing price can impact the median price.

Mix adjustment does not seek to compensate for differing rates of change in price between areas. Just for a change between housing types in the sales mix.

It prevents skew from more 4 bed houses selling than flats, or vice versa.

It doesn't prevent a median value changing as a result of a minority of areas changing price, whilst the majority remain stable.

OK, lets try a little example.

House prices are exactly £1000 in all areas. The median price is therefore also exactly £1000.

One year later:

House prices are unchanged in 70% of areas.

House prices rise by 2% in 10% of areas.

House prices fall by 6% in 20% of areas.

What is the median house price? Has it risen or fallen? Have the majority of houses fallen in price?

Answers on a postcard.....;)

Graham_Devon

How are your mum and dad Graham? Are you still living in the spare room, holding out for that crash? My money is still on 50% by Christmas 2009

Why are you asking how my mum and dad are in the middle of an attack?

You know they were struggling, so do you think this is a wise choice of an attack to get at me?

Won't work! The only effect is has is to make me feel sorry for you! (aimed at Nollag as the quote doesn't seem to hold his username).

wotsthat

julieq wrote: »

Good progress this week. We've defined a crash as between a 10 and 20% nominal drop over three years, and you've agreed the supply/demand imbalance is sustaining prices. All we need now is for the bears to figure out that restricting lending helps no-one except the baby boomers who already have houses or BTL. and all the pennies have finally dropped.

I predict GD will spend much of today saying he didn't say the things you are saying he said. In fact he probably didn't mean the things he did say in the way you think he said them.

Stir in a vague vested interest claim and his work will be complete.

nollag2006

I thought prices were 100% guaranteed to fall like a stone in every part of the UK. I am still holding out for the 50% by Christmas 2009 lot to be proven true

Like brit, I've put all my savings into gold because (a) its a nice and shiny metal that gives no yield, and (b) gold can only rocket in price.

geneer

Oh thats 1:1 for this months numberwhang. Everything to play for!

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

I'm pleased you're now accepting the obvious. But it has been a long and uphill battle for you.

I never knew laughing at you was accepting the obvious.

But if laughing at you IS accepting the obvious, then case close. I've completely, 110% accepted the obvious!

Never have I known quite such a compelling argument.

Julie "I predicted wealthy people will be able to buy more. Thats what's happening, clever me, Graham didn't predict it"

Me: "Indeed, I didn't because it's obvious. I predict rain will always fall to the ground, clever me...hey look, rain is falling to the ground, and Julie didn't predict it....hope julie now accepts this." (see what I did there, I made it sound like you didn't accept it, when in actual fact, you just didn't feel the need to comment on something so trivally basic).

Julie "So you accept my argument, it's been a long struggle which I have tried to hold your hand in for you to accept it. See, I was right all along, and now finally you accept this".

nollag2006

Uh, oh !! Looks like this thread has really got the bears upset.

Oh dear - the truth hurts sometimes.

Graham - you need to calm down a bit mon ami. Perhaps nip downstairs from your bedroom, and see if your mum will make you a nice cup of cocoa. Such are the advantages of living at home.