We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
We're aware that some users are currently experiencing errors on the Forum. Our tech team is working to resolve the issue. Thanks for your patience.
Aberdeen. ASPC Q3 2011. Most properties in most areas falling.
geneer
Posts: 4,220 Forumite
Comments
-
" The drop in the average price is expected as the third quarter almost invariably shows a decrease compared to the second quarter."
~John MacRae, ASPC“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Have a look at the graph from your chosen index latest release.
Prices have really crashed haven't they?
What was it I said about stagnation?:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
You might also like this graph from your same link
:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »" The drop in the average price is expected as the third quarter almost invariably shows a decrease compared to the second quarter."
~John MacRae, ASPC
Ah the old seasonal variations gambit.
Drops of £17K. Invariably, this simply didn't happen prior to the market collapse.
What was it you said. "they were always there, only much smaller" :rotfl:.0 -
Lets see.
Aberdeen Q2 2005. £133158
Aberdeen Q3 2005. £132841.
Down by about £300.
Aberdeen Q2 2006. £153772.
Aberdeen Q2 2006. £ 161973.
Up (not down) £2K.
Falls of £13K. Normal seasonal variations. Yer having a larf.0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »What was it I said about stagnation?
I believe you were telling us how the Alps are perfectly flat if you select two convenient points on either side of them.0 -
Right you are Light.
I have to presume that you consider your ad hominem efforts an easier gambit than explaining how, really, when you think about it in a particular strangely constrained way, the alps are actually flat. :rotfl:
I've never claimed the alps are flat.
You were the one to bring that analogy to the forum.
Anyway, enough going off on a tangent, I'm sure anyone accessing these links and with an analytical mind will see your getting your knickers in a twist over something that in cintext has no bearing.
The market is stagnant, some months / quarters up, some months / quarters down, but generally stagnant around the same level. :wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »I've never claimed the alps are flat.
You were the one to bring that analogy to the forum.
Of course what your not pointing out is that the analogy is apt.
Because what you clearly are doing in your proclimation of "stagnation" is picking two convenient points and ignoring everything in the middle.IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Anyway, enough going off on a tangent
Hardly a tangent though is it, when its the fundamental basis of your innacurate announcement to the forum.IveSeenTheLight wrote: »I'm sure anyone accessing these links and with an analytical mind will see your getting your knickers in a twist over something that in cintext has no bearing.
Someone with an analytical mind would consider all avaliable information and apply context. What your doing is misrepresenting
the blunt global averages.IveSeenTheLight wrote: »The market is stagnant, some months / quarters up, some months / quarters down, but generally stagnant around the same level.
Two things. When you say up and down your talking about tens of thousands of pounds. These are not nominal "fluctuations" around a stagnating market. These are significant volatile movements.
You are misrepresenting the scale of what you seem to be trying to characterise as normal variations. This is dishonest.
You also have pointedly refused to consider or discuss the fact that these variations were demonstrabley not present before the markets essentially failed. Which again, is somewhat dishonest of you.0 -
Because what you clearly are doing in your proclimation of "stagnation" is picking two convenient points and ignoring everything in the middle.
No, it's not about simply looking at the start and end points, it's also about the data in between.
A better analogy would be the cruising height of a glider.
The glider could be cruising at 1,000ft and in between thermals the height reduces (let's say to 850 ft).
when the next thermal is reached the glider reaches 1,150 ft before moving on and the cycle continues.
Now of course the altitude ranges between 850 ft and 1,150 ft, however over the course of the flight plan, the cruising altitude could be summised as 1,000ft
No doubt I've tee'd you up for the glider must come down and therefore will crash
Someone with an analytical mind would consider all avaliable information and apply context. What your doing is misrepresenting
the blunt global averages.
Who's referring to global averages?
Of course someone with an analytical mind might consider the methodology for the stats?
What is the ASPC's methodology?
Do they mix adjust?
Do they do repeat sales regression?
Or do they simply use the average of the properties sold that month?Two things. When you say up and down your talking about tens of thousands of pounds. These are not nominal "fluctuations" around a stagnating market. These are significant volatile movements.
You are misrepresenting the scale of what you seem to be trying to characterise as normal variations. This is dishonest.
I refer you back to the methodology point which will impact the statistics.
It seems you really believe properties fluctuate by tens of thousands of pounds up and down each month.
Dishonest........, give me a break.TwoYou also have pointedly refused to consider or discuss the fact that these variations were demonstrabley not present before the markets essentially failed. Which again, is somewhat dishonest of you.
Your trying to link something another poster stated about seasonal adjustments.
There are sufficient articles on this matter.
Maybe if you took the time to read and digest the markets you would understand them a little better.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
P.S. Considering your view that these are hard fast facts that all property is fluctating so volitantly.
what's your consideration of the trend, even looking at the troughs of each cycle :wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards